Do you agree with Israel's attack on Syria (100)
Obstinance_Works: Fear. Just like the fear of nuclear war which prevents total war in the modern world.
Animals that live peacefully are the ones under a permanent threat of some description - like rabbits, rabbits can breed in abundance and never conflict with other rabbits over resources because the rabbit population is constantly kept in check by a predator. Nuclear weapons to us are the equivalent of the fox to the rabbit, only they don't provide a population check which means that Humanity, unlike rabbits, comes to overpopulate the globe.
Animals that live peacefully are the ones under a permanent threat of some description - like rabbits, rabbits can breed in abundance and never conflict with other rabbits over resources because the rabbit population is constantly kept in check by a predator. Nuclear weapons to us are the equivalent of the fox to the rabbit, only they don't provide a population check which means that Humanity, unlike rabbits, comes to overpopulate the globe.
The US and the Soviets, had nuclear weapons for a number of decades. Never stopped them from waging proxy wars, did it? Do you think India and Pakistan will now have peace since both are nuclear armed? don't think so!
Iuchi_Zien: The US and the Soviets, had nuclear weapons for a number of decades. Never stopped them from waging proxy wars, did it? Do you think India and Pakistan will now have peace since both are nuclear armed? don't think so!
'Just like the fear of nuclear war which prevents total war in the modern world.'
Can any conflict between nuclear nations be compared to anything we saw in the two world wars and beyond? Didn't think so.
Iuchi_Zien: As a resident of Serbia I'm sure you are aware that none of the reasons you have given would have stopped the war in the Balkans? What about religion? what about the 1400 years of hatred and violence in the Balkans? Are the Serbs going to forget their history? are the Croatians? Are you going to demand all countries return to the stone ages? Because AK-47's are regularly produced with little more complicated than a lathe.
No revolution ,war,riot has ever started on its own ,someone was always planing it ahead ,carried it out if there was a profit for him and a small group of his accomplishes
Obstinance_Works: 'Just like the fear of nuclear war which prevents total war in the modern world.'
Can any conflict between nuclear nations be compared to anything we saw in the two world wars and beyond? Didn't think so.
Can any conflict between nuclear nations be compared to anything we saw in the two world wars and beyond? Didn't think so.
Nobody is talking about total war. How many people do you think died in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the various other wars fought in proxy between the Soviets, the US and China? I can tell you that it is reckoned that the Chinese lost between 450,000 and 1,000,000 in Korea, how many civilians were killed? and you say that nuclear weapons have done anything?
Boban1: No revolution ,war,riot has ever started on its own ,someone was always planing it ahead ,carried it out if there was a profit for him and a small group of his accomplishes
And no 'religious nutter', or 'patriot' has ever operated independently to start a conflict? How are you going to stop the likes of George W. Bush? or Galtieri? Or any of the leaders of countries from using patriotism as a weapon? or using false propaganda to start a war?
PJ1961: It does not need to. We have to make a conscious decision to use other methods of negotiation.
It's similar to a child growing up - eventually he/she learns that dialog is far more effective than temper tantrums.
It's similar to a child growing up - eventually he/she learns that dialog is far more effective than temper tantrums.
I agree, it does not need to be this way,but it is!!!
the reality is tribal warfare exists basically in every species and humans are no exception...throughout the history of humanity there has being wars,will this change??? history tells us otherwise!!!
you only have to look at the chaos in the Middle East and places in Africa etc etc...who will make this conscious decision if the world's leaders can't???
Iuchi_Zien: Ok here's an example: A river starts in Country A and runs through Country B. Both countries are Arid and rely heavily upon the river as a source of water (both get over 60% of their water from the river.
Problem: due to global warming, or whatever reason, the river flow has dropped by nearly 50% Country B demands that Country A Release water being captured by dams in Country A. Country A says that it needs the water not only to ensure the survival of its people but to provide clean energy for its people, and that if country B didn't use so much of its water in cash crops (the only major source of income for country B) its people would have a shortage of water. You are the diplomat sent to prevent war, what is your solution?
Problem: due to global warming, or whatever reason, the river flow has dropped by nearly 50% Country B demands that Country A Release water being captured by dams in Country A. Country A says that it needs the water not only to ensure the survival of its people but to provide clean energy for its people, and that if country B didn't use so much of its water in cash crops (the only major source of income for country B) its people would have a shortage of water. You are the diplomat sent to prevent war, what is your solution?
Good, thank you, I like these kinds of puzzles...
1) we look beyond those two countries - who are their neighbors and what are their resource situations like? Can they lend a hand in any fashion?
2) we look at agricultural infrastructure - can they grow food with less water utilizing waste reduction systems, creating permaculture practices (swales, rain capture, mulching, etc)?
3) Does providing clean energy have to rely solely upon water resources (are there wind and solar opportunities)? expand alternatives
4) place real value on the lives and property that are at risk if war ensues - is it worth the destruction and loss of life?
5) bring in outside help in both agriculture and energy - not NATO or other UN advocates - they don't help...
6) offer rewards to both countries' citizens for creative solutions
7) look for joint effort solutions - perhaps Country A wants some of Country B's produce and perhaps Country B wants some of Country A's energy
Most of all - start off knowing that where there's a will there's a way. War only makes the situation worse - it could even destroy the dam leaving the energy producer in the dark, so to speak, and the fields below flooded out - nobody wins.
Seek win win solutions.
Tomcats2: so me punching my next door neighbour cause he has bricks he might give to another neighbour to throw at me one day alows me to punch his teeth out that would be self defence in your mind then and legal?
Actually could not care less what the Isrealies do as long as British troops are not dragged into another war but bet we will
Actually could not care less what the Isrealies do as long as British troops are not dragged into another war but bet we will
In my opinion you summed up the situation perfectly. Thank you
PJ1961: Good, thank you, I like these kinds of puzzles...
1) we look beyond those two countries - who are their neighbors and what are their resource situations like? Can they lend a hand in any fashion?
1) we look beyond those two countries - who are their neighbors and what are their resource situations like? Can they lend a hand in any fashion?
Country C, to the East, who also produce the same cash crop as Country B say that Country B should reduce its production of the cash crop if its people will be left without food. (which would also happen to increase the value of Country C's crop, thereby making country C more wealthy.)
Country D, to the West is currently at uneasy peace with Country B as both claim ownership of a disputed province inon the border. Country D is also in an election year where the disputed province is playing a major role in the election fight between the various candidates.
PJ1961:
2) we look at agricultural infrastructure - can they grow food with less water utilizing waste reduction systems, creating permaculture practices (swales, rain capture, mulching, etc)?
2) we look at agricultural infrastructure - can they grow food with less water utilizing waste reduction systems, creating permaculture practices (swales, rain capture, mulching, etc)?
Paid for by who? Neither of the countries, or their neighbours, have any significant wealth. Country A says that the only way it can guarantee its own water security and power security is to build the dams. It also points out that it was elected by the majority (rarely in this world, an over 50% majority) based upon its plan to build this infra-structure.
PJ1961:
3) Does providing clean energy have to rely solely upon water resources (are there wind and solar opportunities)? expand alternatives
3) Does providing clean energy have to rely solely upon water resources (are there wind and solar opportunities)? expand alternatives
Again, paid for by whom? Neither country wishes to become en-debted to a major power, who could afford such investment in infra-structure. Who else is going to pay for such expensive alternatives?
PJ1961:
4) place real value on the lives and property that are at risk if war ensues - is it worth the destruction and loss of life?
5) bring in outside help in both agriculture and energy - not NATO or other UN advocates - they don't help...
4) place real value on the lives and property that are at risk if war ensues - is it worth the destruction and loss of life?
5) bring in outside help in both agriculture and energy - not NATO or other UN advocates - they don't help...
Value based upon what? supply and demand? Both are high birth rate countries with similar growth (population) statistics to India.
PJ1961:
6) offer rewards to both countries' citizens for creative solutions
6) offer rewards to both countries' citizens for creative solutions
Again, paid for by who? Your suggestions seem to involve a lot of 'paid for by others' You've seen the attitude of people on this forum, given that the majority seem to come from the area's you would expect to pay for all of these solutions how many do you think would put up with massively increased taxes and a significant drop in living standards to pay for these solutions?
PJ1961:
7) look for joint effort solutions - perhaps Country A wants some of Country B's produce and perhaps Country B wants some of Country A's energy
7) look for joint effort solutions - perhaps Country A wants some of Country B's produce and perhaps Country B wants some of Country A's energy
Both countries are seeking different forms of economic growth if we assume that the 'cash crop' is coffee Country A produces enough for its own consumption and is hoping to use the energy to create a manufacturing base, in conjunction with its supply of raw materials (ores)
PJ1961:
Most of all - start off knowing that where there's a will there's a way. War only makes the situation worse - it could even destroy the dam leaving the energy producer in the dark, so to speak, and the fields below flooded out - nobody wins.
Seek win win solutions.
Most of all - start off knowing that where there's a will there's a way. War only makes the situation worse - it could even destroy the dam leaving the energy producer in the dark, so to speak, and the fields below flooded out - nobody wins.
Seek win win solutions.
Oh, and Country A has responded to country B's threats to destroy the dams by threatening to redirect the rivers path away from country B Absolutely within its legal rights according to international law, it points out, but devastating to Country B who has responded by threatening to invade if ANY work begins on diverting the river. Country D has offered its support to Country A in the event that Country A is invaded.
The crowd moves with the logic of mr. Menga, tons of words without knowing what mean theocratic regime
Iuchi_Zien: And no 'religious nutter', or 'patriot' has ever operated independently to start a conflict? How are you going to stop the likes of George W. Bush? or Galtieri? Or any of the leaders of countries from using patriotism as a weapon? or using false propaganda to start a war?
Trust me on this, its always about the money (controlling different sources of energy,the food distribution and market)
Religious nutters is a good term and I do not want to start a discussion about organized religion as a mean of mass manipulation .
Patriotism is a word that has been abused ,anyway all they can do is start a isolated incident ,nothing more... ,big turmoils like ,riots revolutions,wars are always carried out outta financial interests.Religion ,medias are just tools of propaganda
There is a small difference, democracy allows you to breathe, obvious that nothing created by man is perfect
Jokerman73: There is a small difference, democracy allows you to breathe, obvious that nothing created by man is perfect
Democracy is the best form of government we have at present....until we devise a new form of government....way into the future.
Tomcats2: so me punching my next door neighbour cause he has bricks he might give to another neighbour to throw at me one day alows me to punch his teeth out that would be self defence in your mind then and legal?
Actually could not care less what the Isrealies do as long as British troops are not dragged into another war but bet we will
Actually could not care less what the Isrealies do as long as British troops are not dragged into another war but bet we will
The American, British, Europians, Australians & New Zealanders are always dragged into wars...Allies Forces. Governments decide the wars and the warriors fight them and are damaged badly(mentally & physically, even decades after).
conduit: Democracy is the best form of government we have at present....until we devise a new form of government....way into the future.
Someone say that powerful groups are able to change the time-weather using chemtrails, if this is true.. we are at the end .. the future will consist of a few ppl who control the multitude ... damn but this also happened in the past
well, if that isn't just darned narrow...
Are you familiar with organizations that help farmers and developing countries? Not all actions require tax payer money nor do all potential solutions require government intervention.
And, have you read Three Cups of Tea?
War is no solution and as long as people perpetuate that myth - there is no hope for humanity.
Each of the ag countries ought contact permaculturalists and seek grants to develop sustainable and diverse crop projects. i.e.:
The power producing country ought take another look at their funding mechanisms and expenses - and find a way to fund small scale solar projects, including outside investment (which is a growing field now since nuclear plants in Japan began killing the ocean).
That alone will change birth statistics, so have no fear - population decline is in the future. And, sad to say, there will be new medical jobs to handle all the radiation related illnesses, so it's not like ag and power will be the only economic options in the future.
These countries are certainly facing what appears to be insurmountable odds - but again - where there's a will there's a way.
Destroying each other is the least desirable option. Remember - most people find war abhorrent and, in the end, the only people who do well in war - are the war profiteers. Never "the people."
It sounds like you have a lot of time invested in the "war economy paradigm."
For these primarily unidentified countries - it'd probably be a good idea to kick "super powers" and oil corporations out. Switch the opium growers over to hemp, food, and biofuel crops.
P.S. The CCC in the US was a hugely successful program - why people forget history - I don't know.
Are you familiar with organizations that help farmers and developing countries? Not all actions require tax payer money nor do all potential solutions require government intervention.
And, have you read Three Cups of Tea?
War is no solution and as long as people perpetuate that myth - there is no hope for humanity.
Each of the ag countries ought contact permaculturalists and seek grants to develop sustainable and diverse crop projects. i.e.:
The power producing country ought take another look at their funding mechanisms and expenses - and find a way to fund small scale solar projects, including outside investment (which is a growing field now since nuclear plants in Japan began killing the ocean).
That alone will change birth statistics, so have no fear - population decline is in the future. And, sad to say, there will be new medical jobs to handle all the radiation related illnesses, so it's not like ag and power will be the only economic options in the future.
These countries are certainly facing what appears to be insurmountable odds - but again - where there's a will there's a way.
Destroying each other is the least desirable option. Remember - most people find war abhorrent and, in the end, the only people who do well in war - are the war profiteers. Never "the people."
It sounds like you have a lot of time invested in the "war economy paradigm."
For these primarily unidentified countries - it'd probably be a good idea to kick "super powers" and oil corporations out. Switch the opium growers over to hemp, food, and biofuel crops.
P.S. The CCC in the US was a hugely successful program - why people forget history - I don't know.
Sorry - the above is directed to Iuchi_Zien's dissection of plausible ideas....
If what you write is your work then congratulations.. not bad, but it seems a crying to the moon, the reality is an injustice that does not depend on the man.. do you think things goes better in the animal kingdom? Who created this dimension is the real culprit, at last but not least the poor to help the rich to live better
PJ1961: this is why we need to ban war. It isn't just - all it is are those with the most money trying to capture resources so they can have more control and amass more money. It's pure hypocrisy and it destroys communities and families and causes us all to think bad thoughts about others when we all belong to the same family. The human family. Diverse we are, but, we are one. Peace to all of you.
Yes we should but the problem is we would end up with a war to enforce the ban on war. I know that sounds funny but its true.
In response to: PJ1961]
The evolution of humanity has individual paths, in 1600 Galileo was talking about real things, while the dominant power drove the crowd into oblivion, today as yesterday, tomorrow will be like today, when you look at the horizon your neighbors will try to rob you, do not overestimate the masses, the common people for the most part is more similar to the pig than the ape
PJ1961: well, if that isn't just darned narrow...
All of the above examples of behavior are based upon REAL countries responses to threats. The example given involved real countries. Fortunately the river involved is currently stable but has in the past reduced to less than 20% of its current flow creating massive tensions between the two countries involved. The leaders of countries are Politicians, they are interested in POWER, otherwise they wouldn't have become leaders. War is NOT the least desirable option because of the rules the UN have put in place. I think you are living in fairy world if you believe that. Wars consolidate power. They allow power hungry leaders to ignore democracy and become dictators. Why do you think politicians seem so eager to talk about the risk of terrorism? Why do you think they introduce laws limiting our freedom in the name of 'security'?
Farmers, like the majority of the population, are inherently conservative, otherwise if the farming solution you is so effective why have the vast majority of the farming world ignored it? When your life and your families lives depends upon the crops harvested in the autumn would you take the risk? The majority of farmers in the third world are also illiterate so they don't have access to the internet, as you do. Farmers will always chose what they KNOW works over 'new ideas'.
Boban1: Trust me on this, its always about the money (controlling different sources of energy,the food distribution and market)
Religious nutters is a good term and I do not want to start a discussion about organized religion as a mean of mass manipulation .
Patriotism is a word that has been abused ,anyway all they can do is start a isolated incident ,nothing more... ,big turmoils like ,riots revolutions,wars are always carried out outta financial interests.Religion ,medias are just tools of propaganda
Religious nutters is a good term and I do not want to start a discussion about organized religion as a mean of mass manipulation .
Patriotism is a word that has been abused ,anyway all they can do is start a isolated incident ,nothing more... ,big turmoils like ,riots revolutions,wars are always carried out outta financial interests.Religion ,medias are just tools of propaganda
It is all about POWER, money gives power, organised religion is power, and organised religion provides money, which is power. Starting a war, starting a revolution, even starting a riot is about the use of that power to, hopefully, gain more power.
Checkers101: Yes we should but the problem is we would end up with a war to enforce the ban on war. I know that sounds funny but its true.
You would also have to outlaw democracy to create the environment for a ban on war to be enforced.
Checkers101: Yes we should but the problem is we would end up with a war to enforce the ban on war. I know that sounds funny but its true.
Still not seeing that where there is a will there is a way - people are very capable of changing. Mot an easy task - but also not insurmountable.
Iuchi_Zien: All of the above examples of behavior are based upon REAL countries responses to threats. The example given involved real countries. Fortunately the river involved is currently stable but has in the past reduced to less than 20% of its current flow creating massive tensions between the two countries involved. The leaders of countries are Politicians, they are interested in POWER, otherwise they wouldn't have become leaders. War is NOT the least desirable option because of the rules the UN have put in place. I think you are living in fairy world if you believe that. Wars consolidate power. They allow power hungry leaders to ignore democracy and become dictators. Why do you think politicians seem so eager to talk about the risk of terrorism? Why do you think they introduce laws limiting our freedom in the name of 'security'?
Farmers, like the majority of the population, are inherently conservative, otherwise if the farming solution you is so effective why have the vast majority of the farming world ignored it? When your life and your families lives depends upon the crops harvested in the autumn would you take the risk? The majority of farmers in the third world are also illiterate so they don't have access to the internet, as you do. Farmers will always chose what they KNOW works over 'new ideas'.
Farmers, like the majority of the population, are inherently conservative, otherwise if the farming solution you is so effective why have the vast majority of the farming world ignored it? When your life and your families lives depends upon the crops harvested in the autumn would you take the risk? The majority of farmers in the third world are also illiterate so they don't have access to the internet, as you do. Farmers will always chose what they KNOW works over 'new ideas'.
The UN needs to be removed.
New ways? Permaculture has a long track record of success - a Pakistani friend of mine here has read permaculture info and sees value for his farm and is going to learn more
Fairy world - and what world do you live in? The Military Industrial Complex Economic Paradigm POV forced down everyone's throats for far too long.
I don't buy it, never have, never will. We are smarter than that.
Nothing is as it seems. Truth is real - the constructs of societies are man made.
read the whole article:
PJ1961: Still not seeing that where there is a will there is a way - people are very capable of changing. Mot an easy task - but also not insurmountable.
humanity has changed relatively little through out history...our environment changes but people still carry animal instinct...
survival of the fittest.
we can not understand war unless were actually in the harsh reality of war environment...
wars are a very complex/delicate issue and may stretch back from many generations ago...EX Ireland/Britain
PJ1961: The UN needs to be removed.
New ways? Permaculture has a long track record of success - a Pakistani friend of mine here has read permaculture info and sees value for his farm and is going to learn more
Fairy world - and what world do you live in? The Military Industrial Complex Economic Paradigm POV forced down everyone's throats for far too long.
I don't buy it, never have, never will. We are smarter than that.
Nothing is as it seems. Truth is real - the constructs of societies are man made.
read the whole article:
yep,lying Gordon Duff!New ways? Permaculture has a long track record of success - a Pakistani friend of mine here has read permaculture info and sees value for his farm and is going to learn more
Fairy world - and what world do you live in? The Military Industrial Complex Economic Paradigm POV forced down everyone's throats for far too long.
I don't buy it, never have, never will. We are smarter than that.
Nothing is as it seems. Truth is real - the constructs of societies are man made.
read the whole article:
It's really too bad women gave up their power to men so long ago.
Our social constructs are the results of a long history of male dominated power structures.
Don't get me wrong - I harbor no anger towards men. And, please don't bother dragging me into an argument that women are just as bad.
Our social constructs are the results of a long history of male dominated power structures.
Don't get me wrong - I harbor no anger towards men. And, please don't bother dragging me into an argument that women are just as bad.
More Threads
men's perspective towards women
rarotonga
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
Feel Good Music
wanting beyond need
other can see but not you
The Best of the GOP
Sleepy Don!
the way you look
Common Issues with the BMW X1
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
we recognize first that where there's will there's away, banning war needs to be comprehensive - it means changing economies... it's bigger than I can fully explain here... and - haha, I'm on a bus going over a windy mountain road at the moment. typing is challenging
may peace prevail
Ok here's an example: A river starts in Country A and runs through Country B. Both countries are Arid and rely heavily upon the river as a source of water (both get over 60% of their water from the river.
Problem: due to global warming, or whatever reason, the river flow has dropped by nearly 50% Country B demands that Country A Release water being captured by dams in Country A. Country A says that it needs the water not only to ensure the survival of its people but to provide clean energy for its people, and that if country B didn't use so much of its water in cash crops (the only major source of income for country B) its people would have a shortage of water. You are the diplomat sent to prevent war, what is your solution?