Can there be peace without war?

Level 12
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,138
As many of you older members will know I love philosophy and metaphysics, it is the place where a great many of our discussions came from. For you newer people feel free to search my name and you will find that many times did Dan and I have very long threads with each other and occassionally a few others would join in.

Here are the basic rules;
  1. Be respectful of others opinions even if you do not agree with them
  2. Everything stated is just an opinion or belief, nothing is fact so do not get angry
  3. Keep it relavent or I will delete your post
  4. If you have nothing to add then do not say anything, spam is not welcome

These rules apply for all of my posts actually so keep them in mind. All of this being said we can now get into the heart of the topic on hand and talk.

There can be no joy without sadness, no hope without despair, light creates darkness and good serves to balance evil. What rises must fall, the mighty become weak, yin turns to yang which become yin again, a leader must follow and flowers die.

So can a pacifist's dream ever be realized? Could the be peace with no war? Could ever there be war with no peace? Are these two linked and are one and the same, but different sides?

Personally I believe there will always be war and strife, I find it doubtful that humanity can ever find lasting harmony with itself. I think that there will always be doubt, suspicion, and those who seek to take advantage of others. What are your thoughts?
 
Level 8
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
390
I completely agree with you. Even if it was possble, it would not be something I would want. The only way peace can be maintained for a long period of time is through strict control by the government to ensure there is no conflict of authority on a large enough scale to cause war. This would just lead to oppression of the people and the suppression of ideas that challenge the government.

A lasting peace would also do nothing but stagnate human society. Conflict is a natural occurance and as long as humans have desires of their own, those desires will conflict with others and there will always be some form of struggle. Constant peace and "tranquility" would ruin creative influence, decay moral values, and make life a boring experience.

The best we can do as a global society is not to destroy the planet due to our personal strifes and to develop a "code of conduct" during wars to prevent the complete loss of human life on this planet. We also need to make sure that none of the future wars stem from a deep hatred towards one another. Becuase such hatred can erupt and transform into a mass genocide which will get out of control.
 
Level 29
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
2,247
It is impossible for there to be peace, at least forever anyway. It is against the human nature, in my opinion. And if there was an everlasting peace, I'd go insane and try to stop it... Because everything would just be life at a stand still. We probably wouldn't be able to express our own ideas, we most likely wouldn't be able to wear what we want to wear... It'd have to be a totalitarianism system for everything to be under control.
 
Level 3
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
51
pfft i live in compton technology dont save you, wits does...but without my ipod i would die..seriously
 
Level 21
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,516
i cant belive this post has been binned and i cant believe that the colour tags thing is an issue!

i personally believe it is our nature to be violent, perhaps war is something that stems from this. like a need to be violent and show some kind of dominance. many people actually write about the pleasures of war, being a team, fighting for what you believe in. trust your life in your countrymans hands just as you protect them. its always said about how war can bring out the best and the worst of people. fact is it does both, and while it may be horrific, it may also be a part of us. it is said that somepeople were born to be a soldier, i think this is true. just like boxing or matial arts, getting hurt isnt a problem, it is something inside that makes us do it.

as to peace without war, i think its possible. in the far future when people stop caring about all the little differences like religion, race, coloured posts; when everyone learns to get along. at the moment we are so different to anyone beyond our borders, not just other contries but other cities or other people you meet in the streets. i think we all have a war to fight in and a longing for peace, the balance is hard to find but i think its in us all somewhere.


edit, if this was moved from offtopic to here (tho i see no post saying moved) please move it back because this is not spam, it is an intresting discussion which should be in the off topic forum not here.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947

You have no idea who you're talking to do you? I'm sorry, but his authority outranks every other mod on this site.

I agree here. I don't think it's possible that 6.5 billion people could possibly coexist completely peacefully, and harmoniously together without ever coming to conflict.

It just isn't going to happen. It's almost impossible to find two people that have the exact same interests, opinions, ideals, etc, and without all of these things being exactly the same for everyone, there will not be peace. And since I think that it is impossible for this to happen (for everyone on earth to agree about everything), there will always be conflict. There will always be something on earth that people will have different opinions about, and that will cause wars.

PS I seriously think the philosophy forum should be recreated. It's useful if Mecheon decides to hang around :D
 
Level 18
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,398
You have no idea who you're talking to do you? I'm sorry, but his authority outranks every other mod on this site.

I agree here. I don't think it's possible that 6.5 billion people could possibly coexist completely peacefully, and harmoniously together without ever coming to conflict.

It just isn't going to happen. It's almost impossible to find two people that have the exact same interests, opinions, ideals, etc, and without all of these things being exactly the same for everyone, there will not be peace. And since I think that it is impossible for this to happen (for everyone on earth to agree about everything), there will always be conflict. There will always be something on earth that people will have different opinions about, and that will cause wars.

PS I seriously think the philosophy forum should be recreated. It's useful if Mecheon decides to hang around :D


It does not matter if he outranks god(if one exists) he still has to follow the rules of the site.
 
Level 21
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,516
You have no idea who you're talking to do you? I'm sorry, but his authority outranks every other mod on this site.

correct.


I agree here. I don't think it's possible that 6.5 billion people could possibly coexist completely peacefully, and harmoniously together without ever coming to conflict.

i think they can and i think its possible, in time people i think people may learn to live together. with strong world leaders who arent incompetent and if everyone were taught to respect and understand other people beliefs and cultures i think its very possible. the problem is people strugggle understanding these things. anything different to their own belief is wrong and therefore must be destroyed, i think its part of the human condition. opposing sport teams (and fans) will fight in competition because each believes they are right and better. its the level of control over this competition that counts. i think competition is great, beating another team at football rules! but a war is the maximum extreem of competition and this is what should be controlled. as far as im aware the only solution is a cutt off, like australia or switzerland or canada have done. be neutral and be nice. i think things like war is under the nations leaders control, and if a country is lead correctly wars would not always be neccessary.

i think two things are needed

1. understanding of others

2. leaders who genuinely would do everything in their power to maintain peace


PS I seriously think the philosophy forum should be recreated. It's useful if Mecheon decides to hang around :D

yeh i would like that back. parhaps all the old threads could be brought back in.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
Well yes, that's entirely it. If we get world leaders that can all just agree on things (even if they agree to disagree) then the world would be in a much happier state. But then comes the inevitable problem: these leaders can't last forever. So a new leader needs to be elected. What if this leader doesn't agree with the others over things? And treaties, and alliances, sometimes ancient, force countries into war with eachother, even if they are only half-heartedly supporting the cause. Thus, the cycle begins again....

@Sansui: As Malufa said in another thread: "Until Ralle calls me and tells me himself" he ain't switching.

Nothing anyone can say or do can change that, either, with the exception of Ralle himself, the only person that Malufa answers to.
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,138
You dare think you can tell me to not make my own posts in green? I will have you know that I was writing in green long before you ever had an inkling of an idea of what Ralle's maps were let alone coming here. I was a super moderator long before you even even registered on this site, so I would shut the hell up if I were you and just walk away.
 
Level 21
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,516
i would expect a muhahahahaha!!! in that post somewhere. William i wish to see you participating in the topic aswell though, whats your take on the world leaders thing? does anyone think that it is the leaders who can unite a nation in peace? or is the people themselves?
 
Level 21
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,516
well it is commonly known that mods cannot ban, they can request admins to ban. until William is banned, expect all his posts to be in green, if you dont like it i expect you are going to have to live with it because i very much doubt he will be banned.
 
Level 13
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
1,156
You dare think you can tell me to not make my own posts in green? I will have you know that I was writing in green long before you ever had an inkling of an idea of what Ralle's maps were let alone coming here. I was a super moderator long before you even even registered on this site, so I would shut the hell up if I were you and just walk away.

Ahh, what a hipocrite. Didn't you say something in the first post?

1) You aren't even a mod, let alone an admin. The past is the past - the present is the present.
2) You don't own the site, you don't run the site, and you don't control the site - that means you have to follow the rules.

Only babies and fools cry about not being able to make the rules long after retiring.

To quote someone:

We all serve a higher power, whether we realize it or not is decided by the individual.

About time you realise while you post here, you're under Ralle.
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Without challenge (like doing algebra problems for an example), there would be no fun. Therefore, everything would just be plain quiet. Nothing to do, nothing to understand and nothing to achieve.

In my opinion, war is a challenge for all of mankind (or any intelleligent life forms in the universe). A way to practice on how to cooperate and compromise with others on what to agree and disagree. So, I believe war is a thing that can never go away.
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Sorry to ask this, but is the discussion on peace without war over? Just curious of whats going on here.
 

Deleted member 126647

D

Deleted member 126647

It's a half-half discussion thread.
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
Yes it is, but it's all about all of these noobs disrespecting who Malufa is. Sorry, but you people have no respect. Malufa abides by his own rules, and is only under Ralle. Like I said, he doesn't listen to you, he doesn't listen to the Mods, and he doesn't listen to anyone else but Ralle.

Ralle did not put the colour tag rule in place, Archian did, therefor Mecheon doesn't have to follow them until Ralle says so.

And if anyone doesn't like his position, tough, because he isn't going anywhere, and he isn't changing. No one but Ralle can force him to do anything, so you all seem to be out of luck.
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Let's get back on topic shall we? Besides, this is a good discussion thread, at least for now. :emote_grin:


but challenge shouldnt result in a war, that is surely insane?

Its not insane. As I said above, it is a way to practice (or challenge) us on how to cooperate and compromise on stuff that we agree or disagree.
 
Level 18
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,398
Brad, it is you and malufa being the noobs disrespecting people.

Malufa has no right to act like a total douche back and disrespect everyone. I for one have never heard of him and he comes here acting like king shit showing no respect to anyone. This makes him a cocky, disrespectful, douche bag.

It doesn't matter if he was here earlier than anyone, he is not in charge now. and even if he was , as long as the rule is there he must follow it.
 
Level 13
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
1,156
Yes it is, but it's all about all of these noobs disrespecting who Malufa is. Sorry, but you people have no respect. Malufa abides by his own rules, and is only under Ralle. Like I said, he doesn't listen to you, he doesn't listen to the Mods, and he doesn't listen to anyone else but Ralle.

Ralle did not put the colour tag rule in place, Archian did, therefor Mecheon doesn't have to follow them until Ralle says so.

And if anyone doesn't like his position, tough, because he isn't going anywhere, and he isn't changing. No one but Ralle can force him to do anything, so you all seem to be out of luck.

Fine. Don't do your job. Archian's authority comes from...oh, yes, Ralle, meaning that it is binding with Ralle's authority.

Yes it is, but it's all about all of these noobs disrespecting who Malufa is.
Noobs? Oh, yea, obviously. Strange, only it happens to include a mod here, and a mod at WC3C. Obviously noobs.

Who is he? He's a liar (you've shown that) who's breaking the rules. Maybe he was something else, but that's the past - not the present.

EDIT: After reading this thread twice. I noticed that this thread is about war, and there came a war.. pretty weird in my oppinion :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Level 9
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
448
I have an idea....Shutup and get back to the topic please

--------------------------------------------------------
I do believe that the objective of this threat earliar was to discuss war? not other people's action's.:emote_naw:

If you disagree with someone's action's do not post it in a war philosophy and opinion form, post it somewhere appropriate or better yet report the individual you think is breaking the rule's to an admin or an authority in this website.:emote_rolleyes:

Now, back to the discussion.:emote_clap:
--------------------------------------------------------
I think economy is the biggest part in war. Proper funding is what war and weaponry thrive on. No money, no war. Badabing! But, what has this world come to? Terrorist's giving a bad reputation to a race (We all know) Presidant's going curropt, dictatership and false accusation's. All of these funded with money that could have been used to Feed our poor. Or help people in africa who need proper education and living essential's.


When the rich wage war...Its the poor who suffer.
---------------------------------------------------------
 
Level 36
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
7,947
Hey, money isn't needed for destruction... look at terrorists... most of them probably don't have money worth of jack, they don't have an army, and they don't have anywhere near the quanity of nukes that the US does, but they can still manage to cause an event as collosal as 911, get away with it, and still remain uncaptured to this day.

I don't think money has anything to do with it. Sure a war is costly, but maximum damage can be done by planning the use of your limited resources correctly.
 
Level 9
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Messages
448
Tsk tsk, money doesn't alway's support war, sometime's it cause's it.

So come's the saying Blood for oil or the like.
People fight for land and power.

I think another part of war is corruption, powerful countries get corrupt and think they are in charge, and that they have duties to fulfil for their own country.

Thus, came the Nazi era.
Of course the Nazi's are gone, but with the violence in afghanistan, iraq.
As well as the nuclear thing's going on in iran, and the hostilities they have made with the allies (E.G Capturing the british sailor's (Although they have been released) ) It does not look like we are far from a world war III.

Man need's to put an end to war before war put's an end to man.
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,138
Alright, want to play the rule game? Effective immediately your rules are only binding on people who join after you. Since I joined long before this Archian person his does not effect me.

Happy? I am now following the rules.
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,138
The point of this thread is not the cause of war nor the cause of peace, but rather can peace be obtained through war or is peace without war an impossibility?
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Well, we have to start somewhere, if the cause of war can be found. We can see if we might be able to resolve the world into peace in another way.

What are you talking about? All wars are cause by something like territorial control, sudden attack, killing of a political leader by a guy working for another government, or political strife.
 
Level 32
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
5,299
It's going to be VERY difficult.

We humans are still governed primarily by our basic survival instincts: we desire food, material items, power, and sex far more that we do peace.

The introduction and development of philosophical and religious principles and practices over the last few thousand years has, to some degree, helped to alleviate the problem (while at the same time politics and religion have been contributing to it). The Reformation during the Late Middle Age and, the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, and continued progress in reasoned logic (including the concepts of western democracy and international diplomacy) are encouraging signs.

It's all a mater of how much time and effort we put into solving the problem. As the human species and our technological society continues to evolve we must decrease the need for war by providing for basic survival requirements and promote peace.

At the same time there is a "Catch 22" situation: responsible governments/societies may occasionally need to practice war upon regimes that are the most hostile and warlike themselves i.e. Nazi Germany among others.

[off topic] I do not believe that this discussion is properly located.

~ Thread moved to Off-Topic.
 
Level 18
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
1,398
Alright, want to play the rule game? Effective immediately your rules are only binding on people who join after you. Since I joined long before this Archian person his does not effect me.

Happy? I am now following the rules.
one, you cant make rules. You are simply a normal user now.

but if you want to play like that with THIS site, not the old forums which are not in question.
ralle: Join Date: 10-06-2004
me: Join Date: 04-14-2004

So I dont need to follow any rules?
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
[off-topic] Wow, I wish I was smart as Wolverabid. XD

[on-topic] We can decrease the need for war, but there will always be mad group of people or person bidding for war. Like you said, the Nazi is an example of those mad groups. All we can do as a first step in war is to cooperate and compromise. If that doesn't work, full force attack or whatever. Like I said a while ago, there will always be war in my opinion. Without challenge there is no fun. Nothing to understand, nothing to do, and nothing to achieve.
 
Level 10
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
703
If we ever were to obtain world peace, someone will say "Look at all this peace, I'll attack so-and-so. They won't even see it coming." Taking advantage of the situation. Therefore, peace is impossible. War without peace and peace without war are both fallacies.
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
We can decrease the need for war, but there will always be mad group of people or person bidding for war. Like you said, the Nazi is an example of those mad groups. All we can do as a first step in war is to cooperate and compromise.

Firstly, I don't think we can really place a ton of blame on the Nazis, a group that was first created to bring Germany out of possibly the most severe depression that the world has ever seen. The entire group cannot be blamed for the anti-Semetic tendencies of an obviously troubled man. After all, many Nazis didn't support the genocide, and many more were forced into service through scare tactics and draft programs. Hitler came to power because Germany was in a state of desparity, and realistically, he would not have even come to power had the Allies issued a fairer ruling in the Treaty of Versailles.

Second, "compromise and cooperation," as you put it, are yet another cause for world war II. British Prime Minister Chamberlain followed a policy of appeasement throughout the beginning of the war, allowign Germany to build up military force and to invade the Rhineland and the Sudetenland, actions which most definitely violated the mandates of the Treaty of Versailles. Had Chamberlain been willing to stand up to Hitler, Germany would have had little power to start any world war.

That's all from me for now, but expect more soon: metaphysics = life...
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
About the Nazi: I always thought the Nazi was a group full of mad people. lol

War: Compromise and cooperation may sometimes prevent a war. It doesn't mean it always starts a war out badly. Then again, it may end a war if it that war starts out without any warning, negotiations, or successful peace talks. If two sides doesn't come to an agreement, then its war or still is war until a side claims victory. If they agree, no war.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
390
World War I and II are essentially the same wars with a break inbetween (while they got their population back up to fighting numbers). Cooperation was what caused World War I through military alliances dividing Europe and pulling more powerful militaristic governments into the small conflict between Bosnia and Serbia.

However WWI stemmed from an ethnic hatred of the Serbs. Hatred towards another ethnicity/religion/any other group of people is what starts virtually every modern war.
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
Hatred towards another ethnicity/religion/any other group of people is what starts virtually every modern war.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I think desire for land/resources plays a greater role than hate in many cases. The Japanese in World War II didn't necessarily hate the Chinese or the Bhurmese; the Japanese simply wanted more land and resources.

About the Nazi: I always thought the Nazi was a group full of mad people.

As do most people...

If two sides doesn't come to an agreement, then its war or still is war until a side claims victory.

Though I am sad to say it, I can't think of very many wars that have ended with a simple agreement.
---------------------------------------------

In answer to the main question, peace without war:
Peace is defined as the absence of hostility. For peace to exist, there must be hostility (war). To think otherwise would be like trying to define darkness without acknowledging light or to define bad without reference to good.
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Civil War is one. Robert E. Lee surrenders as Ulysses Grant promises to prevent charges against him and his men. Thus, ending the Civil War because the last opposing force is now defeated (surrender). His army will also be fed and keep their horses or whatever it is. It's been a while since I read anything about the Civil War. I'll appreciate if you correct me on Civil War. Got to love knowledge. =)
 
Level 7
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
431
Civil War is one. Robert E. Lee surrenders as Ulysses Grant promises to prevent charges against him and his men. Thus, ending the Civil War because the last opposing force is now defeated (surrender). His army will also be fed and keep their horses or whatever it is. It's been a while since I read anything about the Civil War. I'll appreciate if you correct me on Civil War. Got to love knowledge. =)

Well, Robert E. Lee had little choice. American general Ulysses S. Grant had cut through the Mississippi River Valley, dividing the Confederate South in two. Forces under Gen. Benjamin Butler had blocked southern ports and captured the key city of New Orleans. Gen. Sherman had ravaged his way through the South pillaging and then burning whatever was left, and Grant later began the Wilderness Campaign, a march toward the Confederate capitol, Richmond, Virginia. Once Richmond fell, the capitol was moved to Montgomery, Alabama, but Lee knew that the war was over. He had very few men, limited ammunition, no food, and no way of escape. He had been defeated. I don't know that this could necessarily be called an "agreement," considering Lee had the choice to either surrender or to die. Great choices, eh?
 
Level 5
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
158
Oh wait, there is a cease-fire agreement at the very end of Civil War. A native american general serving under the Confederates. His nameis Stand Watie and represents the Cherokee Nation. He is the last Confederate general to stand down. He agreed to the cease-fire agreement and signed it. Thus, truly ending the Civil War since he is the last general of a last opposing force. Hehe, I guess that last post I made was wrong.
 
Top