 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Peace?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:09 AM My point for posting this is to invite polite debate on the issues presented. Do people feel safer now? IMO, we have the perception of not being as safe as we were, but it seems the reality is that we are safer. Peace on Earth? Increasingly, Yes. By Andrew Mack Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A21 Seen through the eyes of the media, the world appears an evermore dangerous place. Iraq is sliding toward civil war, the slaughter in Darfur appears unending, violent insurgencies are brewing in Thailand and a dozen other countries, and terrorism strikes again in Bali. It is not surprising that most people believe global violence is increasing. However, most people, including many leading policymakers and scholars, are wrong. The reality is that, since the end of the Cold War, armed conflict and nearly all other forms of political violence have decreased. The world is far more peaceful than it was. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700732.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:20 AM That rather depends, I would think, on whether you are one of the unlucky multitude who happen to live in one of the many places around the world where other people are trying to kill you. While large, organised, wars between nations have declined, there are still many conflicts devastating the lives of our fellow human beings, and several which threaten more than just the local population. Statistically the world may be more peaceful, but in reality that does not necessarily equate to more safety. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: CarolC Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:24 AM Very interesting... this bit in particular - "Other international agencies, donor governments and nongovernmental organizations also played a critical role, but it was the United Nations that took the lead, pushing a range of conflict-prevention and peace-building initiatives on a scale never before attempted. The number of U.N. peacekeeping operations and missions to prevent and stop wars have increased by more than 400 percent since the end of the Cold War. As this upsurge of international activism grew in scope and intensity through the 1990s, the number of crises, wars and genocides declined. There have been some horrific and much publicized failures, of course -- the failures to stop genocide in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur being the most egregious. But the quiet successes -- in Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Eastern Slovenia, East Timor and elsewhere went largely unheralded, as did the fact that the United Nations' expertise in handling difficult missions has grown dramatically. A major study by the Rand Corp. published this year found that U.N. peace-building operations had a two-thirds success rate. They were also surprisingly cost-effective. In fact, the United Nations spends less running 17 peace operations around the world for an entire year than the United States spends in Iraq in a single month. What the United Nations calls "peacemaking" -- using diplomacy to end wars -- has been even more successful. About half of all the peace agreements negotiated between 1946 and 2003 have been signed since the end of the Cold War." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:31 AM True, CarolC. My complaint with the UN is the places it chooses NOT to invest time in, "the failures to stop genocide in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur " for example. And its pointless posturing on the issue of the Middle East, due to the difference in member nations views on what would be the best path to peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:36 AM Anyone who can turn out a 66% success rate dealing with human psychosis deserves support, I M H O. Blessed are the peacemakers, saith the Scripture -- not, I hasten to add, "blessed are the warmongers". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: number 6 Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:45 AM I ask .... when were we ever safe?? We may not have had delinquint el qaida teenagers flying planes into our buildings back then (whenever that was) ... but there were always wars, civil or 'uncivil', threats of nuclear annhiliation, GMC building and selling us Corvairs, polio, tb, cigarretes, bad food, bad lying presidents, Costa Nostra. The circle keeps spinning ... that's all. Humans keep being humans. Peace, Six |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: InOBU Date: 28 Dec 05 - 10:55 AM Frankly, I would feel much safer and at peace, if my nation was not a criminocracy where the Executive Branch of government decides what is and what is not law, while denying the Judicery that constitutionally dictated role, and the law making branch, flaunts the rules, keeping votes open illeagally, and is jam packed with law breakers... Liberty is a terrible thing to loose. We can't loose it to 23 Saudis on a death trip, but we are loosing it to a nation of cowards who trade it for a veneer of protection. Peace lor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:01 AM Strongly worded, but essentially correct in every word, InOBU DT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:24 PM I'm not sure whether or not the World has recently become more peaceful than it "was". That would depend on when you mean by the word "was", I suppose. I have noticed this, that society in general is under great stress for a number of reasons, most of which are tied to a greatly expanding world population and a diminishing amount of arable land and natural resources. The city of Toronto when I was a kid was extremely clean and there were virtually no homeless people to be seen anywhere. There are now homeless people on every downtown street, there's trash everywhere, and there's a great deal of crime, as compared to a couple of decades back...though it's still better than most (or all?) large American cities. That suggests to me that people's lives in general are becoming less secure now than they used to be, because our social systems are overloading and failing. This is a worldwide phenomenon, driven by our ecomomic system which wants to keep expanding forever...on a limited base. Whether one "feels safer" or not, though, is more a matter of one's own inner state of mind most of the time....(with the exception that in a major emergency such as a hurricane, a war, etc...one is not liable to feel very safe, regardless). Some people focus mainly on positives (they feel empowered, and they act on that feeling). I note that they seem to feel safe most of the time, and they get a lot of useful things done. Others focus mainly on negatives, feeling disempowered (which I have always had a weakness toward doing, as a matter of fact)...and they almost NEVER feel safe. You and I are the victims of the way we think...most of the time. Occasionally we really ARE caught in some quite unfortunate turn of events that comes upon us from an exterior source outside our own range of decision and control, but most of the time it's just our own compulsive negativity that brings us down...in my opinion. I might add that I never, at any time, felt the least bit unsafe on account of Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Never. In fact, I laugh at such a notion! I do feel somewhat unsafe in regards to the Bush administration's possible future decisions...but there are personal matters that worry me a whole lot more than Mr Bush does. He will pass. My personal challenges in life will be with me till I die...and maybe beyond that. You know what's really scary? Aging. Illness. Loneliness. Poverty. Unemployment. Homelessness. Loss of faith in the things (or people) one most relied upon. The loss of one's young hopes and dreams for this life. The loss of loved ones. Stuff like that. Yup, stuff like that concerns me a whole lot more than George Bush or Saddam Hussein ever will. And they're got to deal with that stuff too...every day of their lives. (I do agree, BB, that the media always focus on trouble and disaster. That's their marketing game. It gets attention and sells copy. In a similar sense, movie magazines dwell on the personal disasters of famous people for exactly the same reason. Bad news attracts attention. Gossip is mostly driven by that impulse as well. Nasty business, isn't it?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:34 PM Good points, LH. But I AM concerned about nations whose leaders tell the world that they want to kill me and my family because of where I was born, or what religion my grandmother had, or the color of my skin. Not for any action I have done, but the mere fact of my birth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Amos Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:36 PM Hmmmm... which nations? Do you attribute such sentiments to whole nations (meaning all the people in them) or just to those speaking? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Dec 05 - 12:48 PM Amos, The nations whose leaders make such comments, and the only criticism is that they should have said it quietly instead of yelled. I know some people from those countries, and in general, as individuals they are good people. But they are far more silent than those who disagree with our government: I see no vigerous discussion of "impeaching Ahmadinejad" or cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran and Korea come to mind. And there are other places where I could not go without risking my life just being there, for the reasons stated above. Places that support terrorists who push old men in wheelchairs off of cruise ships, and blow up children's birthday parties knowing there are only innocent civilians present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: michaelr Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:03 PM ...blow up children's birthday parties knowing there are only innocent civilians present. Oh, you mean the US forces overseas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: CarolC Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:15 PM I see no vigerous discussion of "impeaching Ahmadinejad" or cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood And where are you looking for this discussion you say you don't see? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: number 6 Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:22 PM Beardebruce .."But I AM concerned about nations whose leaders tell the world that they want to kill me and my family because of where I was born, or what religion my grandmother had, or the color of my skin. Not for any action I have done, but the mere fact of my birth." Where have you been... read some history. Michaelr ... good point. As I mentioned in my previous post ... "the circle keeps spinning ... that's all. Humans keep being humans." I should add unfortunately. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: robomatic Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:24 PM Good Thread. Basically I'm critical of the United Nations for many things, but I believe it has done some good things as mentioned in this thread. I'm more in favor of having the United States participate and engage with and in the UN more rather than less. "The game is rigged, but it's the only game in town." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:02 PM George W. Bush has, through his stupid application of what he and his cronies consider "the law" and "appropriate wars," drawn a large target on the backs of all Americans. Do I feel "peace?" Hell no. Okay Bruce, now you can attack someone who hates Bush and holds him personally responsible for many of the world's current ills. It's what you were aiming for with this thread, isn't it? SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:06 PM michaelr Give one example, if you have one... CarolC All the sites on the other thread, plus English language versions of the Arab media, and wherever else you suggest I look. Number 6 and after Eastern Europe in the late 19th sentury, and WWII, I should trust the European Union to keep Iran from reporcessing uranium... or was that developing ICBMS? No, wait they have those now. What was it the EU was going to do???? While in Russia, 1905: A week-long pogrom marking one of the bloodiest periods in Russian Jewish history begins, spreading to dozens of towns and villages throughout Russia. Hundreds of Jews are killed, thousands are wounded and over forty thousand homes and shops are destroyed in the rioting. three great waves of anti-Jewish rioting in the Russian Empire in 1881-82, 1903-06, and 1919-21 During the Civil War of 1918-1921, 2,000 pogroms left an estimated 100,000 Jews dead and more than half a million homeless. http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000418.html And in Armenia, by the Turks: http://www.geocities.com/thegenocides/1915/1915.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 29 Dec 05 - 01:17 AM Blogs and Geocities sites are not considered reputable sources when refuting someone else's argument," BB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: dianavan Date: 29 Dec 05 - 03:10 AM robomatice - Good point! "I'm more in favor of having the United States participate and engage with and in the UN more rather than less." Thats when I felt the safest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: michaelr Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:18 PM one two three Plenty more to be found, if you bother to look. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Ron Davies Date: 29 Dec 05 - 10:40 PM BB- "the UN's pointless posturing on the issue of the Middle East"--wrong, as usual . In fact there is more than one "issue of the Middle East" even if you are not aware of this. As I have pointed out more times than once, starting in spring 2004, without UN participation there would have very likely been no Iraq government at all by now. The UN's willingness to be honest broker between the various antagonistic Iraqi factions is what made possible an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency. And have you thanked the UN yet today for Bush's 2004 election? I suspect not. Also, pray tell, who is investigating the murders of Lebanese politicians--fingering Syria? In fact, per the Wall St. Journal today (29 Dec 2005) "A pro-Syria group threatens to kill the head of a UN probe of the Harari killing in Lebanon". I haven't noticed you laying your life on the line for Mideast progress. And who has just certified the recent Iraq election as fair?--again the UN. Last time I checked, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq were all considered in the Mideast. It would be good if you developed another skill than copy-pasting---to pick a purely theoretical suggestion-----how about thinking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:15 AM michaelr, Try reading what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. "US military spokesman Major Christopher West said they had acted on information that a suspected terrorist was at a house near the city of Ghazni. Ground forces later found the body of the intended target along with those of the children nearby, he said. " I will not deny that there have been mistakes in targeting- But which side is it that TARGETS innocent civilian ON PURPOSE? ...blow up children's birthday parties KNOWING there are only innocent civilians present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:51 AM "RAMADI, Iraq -- U.S. Marine airstrikes targeting insurgents sheltering in Iraqi residential neighborhoods are killing civilians as well as guerrillas along the Euphrates River in far western Iraq, according to Iraqi townspeople and officials and the U.S. military. Just how many civilians have been killed is strongly disputed by the Marines and, some critics say, too little investigated. But townspeople, tribal leaders, medical workers and accounts from witnesses at the sites of clashes, at hospitals and at graveyards indicated that scores of noncombatants were killed last month in fighting, including airstrikes, in the opening stages of a 17-day U.S.-Iraqi offensive in Anbar province. "These people died silently, complaining to God of a guilt they did not commit," Zahid Mohammed Rawi, a physician, said in the town of Husaybah. Rawi said that roughly one week into Operation Steel Curtain, which began on Nov. 5, medical workers had recorded 97 civilians killed. At least 38 insurgents were also killed in the offensive's early days, Rawi said." Ron, "I haven't noticed you laying your life on the line for Mideast progress." Nor have you. If that is the criteria you insist on, who here is even entitled to talk about the issue? "It would be good if you developed another skill than copy-pasting---to pick a purely theoretical suggestion-----how about thinking? " So, anyone who does not agree with you is not thinking? Seems ad hominim to me- I guess you really DON'T have any information that would contribute to the discussion. Let me see- If I state my opinion, I am criticised for not having sources. When I state sources, I am criticised for "cut and paste". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Ringer Date: 30 Dec 05 - 07:26 AM How can anyone take the UN seriously?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM Our personal 'Peace' depends solely on our attitude to God and Jesus. We all however have our own choices so please make yours.......Best wishes anyway. Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Once Famous Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:39 AM Excellent statement, Ringer. Most thoughtful and couragous post here. In other words, the UN sucks, and we know it. We tried with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: dianavan Date: 30 Dec 05 - 04:02 PM Martin, there wouldn't even be an Israel if it weren't for the U.N. According to UN resolution 181 (1947) the Palestinian Arabs (70% of the population) who owned 92% of the land, were allocated 47% of the country. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Yes, some decisions have been misguided and sometimes the UN has lacked the resources needed to prevent atrocities but all in all, the UN has done more to promote peace than any other organization. You would rather the U.S. accept responsibility for world peace? World peace will never be accomplished by the U.S. warmongers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Once Famous Date: 30 Dec 05 - 05:57 PM True, there wouldn't be an Israel if not for the UN. What a stupid statement. There wouldn't be an Israel if not for the holocaust, either. The UN has outlived it's usefullness in most respects for the U.S. Go have another cup of Koffe or something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 06:27 PM I think Canada might have had something to do with the UN vote that 'ratified' the State of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:08 PM BB, Ringer, and other giant intellects criticizing the UN------ 1) Please point out to me where I said the UN was perfect. It's even possible--perish the thought---that the current US administration has room for improvement. 2) Did the UN function as honest broker in Iraq, --do I have to explain what that is?-- thus making possible an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency? Yes or no? It was asked to do so, by the way by the Bush regime, which desperately needed its chestnuts hauled out of the fire---and before November 2004.) 3) Is the UN now conducting an investigation of Harari's death--and facing death threats as a result? Yes or no? 4) If my hypothesis as to Bush's 2004 election is wrong, exactly why? 5) BB et al.---with your customary razor-sharp logic, you have managed to miss the point---again. Well done. Good job. I'm not risking my life to bring progress to the Mideast. But I'm also not criticizing the UN, which has members now doing exactly that. Frustrated, impotent people--pun not aimed at you, BB--- criticize those who help. 6) BB---Cut and paste , when accompanied by thinking, is acceptable. You unfortunately fall down on the last part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST Date: 30 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM Office of Global Communications (OGC) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: dianavan Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM Do they have cookies? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:06 PM I would imagine anything to do with the US Government on the www has cookies for everyone who visits. Lotsa cookies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST,Jihadist Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:54 PM Better shut up. NSA is listening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:55 PM No shit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST,Jihadist Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:14 AM No shit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:15 AM You sure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST,Jihadist Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:40 AM What's wrong? Has the tide of war turned against you? How's your weapons stash? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:43 AM Have no weapons. Haven't felt the need. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST,Jihadist Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:54 AM Well in that case keep on talking your anarchist bullshit, I am with you brother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:56 AM But, I know where to get some. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: number 6 Date: 31 Dec 05 - 12:59 AM The UN .... fantastic, great idea ... to bad it didn't work out. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: George Papavgeris Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:20 AM Peace is not the ultimate goal for me, not by itself. It does not satisfy hunger, or correct injustice, or make up for loss of human rights. Neither is "statistical peace" (better than xxx, smaller percentage of the world involved in armed conflict etc) absolute peace. "We have peace" is an absolute statement that implies no conflict anywhere - and we are a long way from that today. But above all, peace without freedom (however one wants to define this) is a beautifully wrapped present that contains nothing. So - no, I do not feel that we are entering 2006 in any better state as a species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Ron Davies Date: 31 Dec 05 - 03:34 PM 6-- Would you prefer no UN? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 05 - 04:04 PM Peace as a condition of a group, whether company or nation, requires the eternal alertness and agility to create new answers in the flow of changing times. It requires management skills, PR skills, deft administration, good justice, smart financial insight and good economics. It is unfortunate that our Administration lacks so many of these. Even their PR is constantly being compromised by its incessant dupicity. But given some degree of these abilities, war is not necessary. If they are used to head situations off before they explode, it will be unusual. Where it isn't, you can find glaring failures in the integrity and ability of leaders to maintain that alertness and those skills. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Ron Davies Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:41 PM Interesting that all the UN critics have somehow not found time to answer whether they think the world would be better off without the UN--and why. Well, let's give them a little more time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: Peace Date: 01 Jan 06 - 09:43 PM True, Ron. The year is young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: GUEST,War Date: 01 Jan 06 - 10:05 PM I think we would be better off with a functioning UN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Peace? From: dianavan Date: 02 Jan 06 - 02:20 AM Yes, War, I agree. The U.N. would function much better if the U.S. paid their debts and supported the U.N. In fact, if the U.S. (Canada, too) were more functional, the U.N. would also be more functional. Lets face it, most nations are slightly dysfunctional - it is hoped that by uniting, they might be a little more functional as a whole. The U.N. is our best hope and continues to play the role of peacekeeper, world-wide. They are limited only by their resources and the support they receive. |
