Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Im starting to think that......Follow

#27 Aug 02 2006 at 5:20 AM Rating: Decent
What does this have to do with pastry?
#28 Aug 02 2006 at 5:45 AM Rating: Decent
Everything
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#29 Aug 02 2006 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Kids are the future of man. Some people have understood this far too well.


I could have posted links to loads of pictures of Palestinian, and other middle eastern (from all over in fact) kids dressing up as suicide bombers and waving ak47's about, but we've all seen those.. that wasn't what I was pointing out.

The point of my post, and believe it or not, most of my posts, is to try and illustrate my belief that, for whatever reasons, 'we' in the west, have decided that our morality is somehow more lofty than 'their' morality.

Somehow 'we' the people, and by that I mean 'all' of us on planet earth, need to come to an understanding, that 'we' all share a finite space. That space is getting more crowded by the day. If 'we' dont finda way of co-operating, we are doomed to keep following the same cycles of conflict that have plagued 'us' since forever.

Trouble is, we got more destructive capabilities than ever before, and if we keep allowing ourselves to be put in lil boxes marked 'white', 'black, 'western', 'eastern', 'moslem', 'christian', whatever, we are fooling ourselves into believing that we have good reason to keep killing each other. This will only lead to more and more conflict, with escalating huge losses of life on all sides, eventually culminating in us bombing ourselves back to the stone-age.. The only people who are benefitting from this, are the people who are making a healthy financial gain out of it.

I can't see any good coming from dropping bombs on people, or teaching our kids that the poeple who live over the river from us, are somehow monsters who want to kill us. War has never solved a problem. the situation in the M.E. isn't gonna be solved with bombs (from either side). Dialogue is the only way.trouble is, theres not much profit in dialogue. Its a lot more profitable to keep us all at each others throats...

I know that this will be ridiculed by some people here, who think that all 'muzzies must die', but even they, must be beginning to see that all this slaughter is only feeding itself, becoming some sort of self sustaining loop of hatred, with no possible outcome, other than more and more hatred and killing.

Or perhaps they believe that repeating the same
Quote:
"creative destruction"
over and over is somehow gonna lead to a different outcome than all the other times it was tried..... sadly for all of us, history tells a different story.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#30 Aug 02 2006 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
Mm.. Not very interesting but they make nice backgrounds for my PC.
#31 Aug 03 2006 at 4:36 AM Rating: Decent
Paulsol, I completely agree.

The whole history of international relations has been based on a rapport de force, it's always been about who can kill/defeat/conquer whom. And these bad habits take a very long time to change.

Violence is always the easy way out. It's quick, easy, allows people to keep up their moralistic one-sided view of the world without being challenged. It appeals to the most basic instincts of man.

And people always go for the easy solution.

Like yous ay, the world is getting "smaller", the population bigger, and the ressources and space are finite. There erally is only one solution to all this which is a tiny bit less worse than the others, and it's to have a proper multinational organisation that acts as World Governemnt on certain worldwide issues: Peace and security, trade, the environment, if we were to keep it to a minimum.

The situation today is the same pattern as when European states were fighting each other every other day. It only stoppe when we created the EU, which for all its imperfections, has enabled the longest period of peace between European states in history. No mean feat.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#32 Aug 03 2006 at 7:22 AM Rating: Default
**
262 posts
RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
to have a proper multinational organisation that acts as World Governemnt


That must be the New World Order that my preacher talks about. It's evil! Don't do it! *Gasp*
#33 Aug 03 2006 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
European states were fighting each other every other day. It only stoppe when we created the EU, which for all its imperfections, has enabled the longest period of peace between European states in history.



I'd say that thing that stopped the Europeans from fighting was the fact that Germany went and rolled over most of Europe with their **** steam-roller and shut everybody up. The EU wasn't formed until like 1992.... maybe you're thinking of the UN?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#34 Aug 03 2006 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
Kelvyquayo wrote:

I'd say that thing that stopped the Europeans from fighting was the fact that Germany went and rolled over most of Europe with their **** steam-roller and shut everybody up. The EU wasn't formed until like 1992.... maybe you're thinking of the UN?


The EU was just an evolution of the EEC, formed by the Rome Treaty in 1957, which was itself an evolution of the European Community of Coal and Steel of 1952, an agrement between Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux to have free trade on Coal and Steel. This was because coal and steel were the two main ressources for war. Hence trade was used as a tool to prmote peace, by ensuring that by sharing such ressources freely, they would not build up an army to invade each other again.

This is the main reason that war hasn't happened again inside the Union.

The UN was similar, except that it lacked real political will behind. It might have worked if countries had respected the Charter and provided the UN with a decent army. But, since no important country was willing to give up so much soveriegnty, the UN could not really impose its will, and therefore became little more than a norm-setter and a talking shop for international peace and security matters.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2006 at 9:14am EDT by RedPhoenixxxxxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 455 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (455)