Thread: Peace on Earth

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

War is peace? Yeah, that was my point.

Yeah I know.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It will be the end of wars between nations. Of course, it will take war to get there...

This would be the greatest joke if I didn't know you were serious.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The communist states were all Soviet satellites, so they were not separate entities.

This is a list of the current Communist states, according to wikipedia.

People's Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Are you claiming that every country in this list is a soviet satellite?(despite the fact that russia is now a democracy)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But you are not too worried that the new Germany and France are going to go to war, are you? Why not?

Because France has nuclear bombs and Germany doesn't and both are heavily invested in each other's economies.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is what Xei posted, and I responded to it.

Actually, you didn't. You picked a few examples out of the list that you thought were easy targets and ignored the rest.

If even one of those wars listed was fought between two legitimate democracies, then you're claim is disproved.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yeah I know.



This would be the greatest joke if I didn't know you were serious.

Sometimes it takes war to achieve peace. Have you heard of World War II? That does not mean war = peace.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is a list of the current Communist states, according to wikipedia.

People's Republic of China
Republic of Cuba
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Are you claiming that every country in this list is a soviet satellite?(despite the fact that russia is now a democracy)

I said they were. That stopped it for a long time. Now we are the only superpower and put more fear in them, so they are not so likely to try to take over anybody. That does not mean it is not in their nature. Communist dictators love to take over as much land as they can and oppress the people. It is what they do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Because France has nuclear bombs and Germany doesn't and both are heavily invested in each other's economies.

That's all? But you did bring up another reason democracies don't go to war. It goes against their economic interests.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Actually, you didn't. You picked a few examples out of the list that you thought were easy targets and ignored the rest.

No, I said that the wars I am familiar with were not between real democracies and that the presence of George III England on that list ruines the credibility of the list. King George III... a democratic leader?????? Even you think that's absurd, don't you

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If even one of those wars listed was fought between two legitimate democracies, then you're claim is disproved.

I said earlier there might be exceptions. I just don't know of any. Civilized, capitalistic, democratic countries where the people really and truly do have the ultimate power are not the kinds of countries that start wars with other countries of that description. If you find an exception, congratulations. Good luck with it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sometimes it takes war to achieve peace. Have you heard of World War II? That does not mean war = peace.

The cause of World War 2 was not an attempt to achieve peace.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said they were. That stopped it for a long time. Now we are the only superpower and put more fear in them, so they are not so likely to try to take over anybody. That does not mean it is not in their nature. Communist dictators love to take over as much land as they can and oppress the people. It is what they do.

More vacuous propaganda

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's all? But you did bring up another reason democracies don't go to war. It goes against their economic interests.

Something that only democracies have, obviously.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you find an exception, congratulations. Good luck with it.

U.S. Invasion of Iraq?

Oh right, we're liberators, not oppressors. Just like China.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The cause of World War 2 was not an attempt to achieve peace.

More vacuous propaganda. I guess saving the world was just a happenstance byproduct? The war was necessary to stop the Nazis. You can't deny that and still see yourself as an honest person.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

More vacuous propaganda.

Yeah, I am just fantacizing that the world's only superpower, who can blow up the world many times over and has a history of fighting totalitarian take over, scares little communist countries out of pulling take overs. What a crazy thought.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Something that only democracies have, obviously.

If it were their governmental nature to take over countries and own them, it would not be against their interests. Hmmmm, maybe that's the difference that led to so many totalitarian take overs in history?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

U.S. Invasion of Iraq?

Oh right, we're liberators, not oppressors. Just like China.

Yeah, democracy/communism, tomato/tomato.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Democracies only fight wars to take on totalitarian dickfaces.

Do you know why it's so difficult to become an active politician in a democratic government? It's because you have to compete with every other politician who wants the same position. If you fail to overcome the competition, it's because you didn't have the same drive for power that they did. You never actually get to know the real person you're voting into office. Even when dictators began their rise to power, it was essential for them to have the support of the people in order to reach their position. Everything is a popularity in contest for political leaders, it has nothing to do with their real morals or ethics, whether you're in the beginning stages of a forming communist country or in any democratic nation in the world. Because of the competitive nature of political status in a democracy, it ensures that only the most cunning/wealthy/deceptive people make it to the top, and those kinds of people certainly don't fight wars to make the world a happy place for people.

People that love power fight for more power, and in a capitalist-democracy, financial gain is power.

Resources are the crux of financial gain.

Wars are fought for resources.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it were their governmental nature to take over countries and own them, it would not be against their interests.

It's in the best interest of any capitalist nation to take over a non-allied country not to own them, but to strip them of their resources. In that respect we're not much different from those who want to own the countries anyways, since territory means land, and land is a resource.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Maybeeee if more women were in power, and the men who want to fight locked away in dungeons somewhere, there would be no more wars. I'm just sayin.'

I've always been of the opinion that women are much more cruel whenever they DO fight, but creating further separation in our species based on easy to recognize physical differences will do nothing in the way of solving social problems domestically or abroad. That's one reason the current model of modern industrial civilization isn't working out: The division and domination of life is not conducive to a peaceful atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

More vacuous propaganda. I guess saving the world was just a happenstance byproduct? The war was necessary to stop the Nazis. You can't deny that and still see yourself as an honest person.

Come now. You know the Germans started ww2, don't you?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, I am just fantacizing that the world's only superpower, who can blow up the world many times over and has a history of fighting totalitarian take over, scares little communist countries out of pulling take overs. What a crazy thought.

I was refering to, "That does not mean it is not in their nature. Communist dictators love to take over as much land as they can and oppress the people. It is what they do."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it were their governmental nature to take over countries and own them, it would not be against their interests. Hmmmm, maybe that's the difference that led to so many totalitarian take overs in history?

If you are claiming that communists have no economic ties to other countries, I'd like you to examine China's relationship with the U.S.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, democracy/communism, tomato/tomato.

I was responding to your claim about democracies. Communism didn't have anything to do with it, or are you calling the U.S. communist? It doesn't matter because I did miss the part where you said "are not the kinds of countries that start wars with other countries of that description." which basically means, "countries do not start wars with their allies."

Originally Posted by Invader

Do you know why it's so difficult to become an active politician in a democratic government? It's because you have to compete with every other politician who wants the same position. If you fail to overcome the competition, it's because you didn't have the same drive for power that they did. You never actually get to know the real person you're voting into office. Even when dictators began their rise to power, it was essential for them to have the support of the people in order to reach their position. Everything is a popularity in contest for political leaders, it has nothing to do with their real morals or ethics, whether you're in the beginning stages of a forming communist country or in any democratic nation in the world. Because of the competitive nature of political status in a democracy, it ensures that only the most cunning/wealthy/deceptive people make it to the top, and those kinds of people certainly don't fight wars to make the world a happy place for people.

People that love power fight for more power, and in a capitalist-democracy, financial gain is power.

Resources are the crux of financial gain.

Wars are fought for resources.

I was right there with you until the last part. I agree that only scum gets elected because they are the most manipulative and power hungry. I despise politicians. However, they have to please the public to keep their power. Pleasing the public includes preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, preventing other countries from taking over the world, and preventing invasions. It is not all about resources. Was stopping the Nazis all about resources? No, they really did try to take over the world. Was the Cold War (which includes the wars in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan 80's, and Central America) all about resources? No, the Soviets with their puppets really were trying to take over the world. What about the Civil War? It had to be fought for many reasons. War is sometimes necessary.

Originally Posted by Invader

It's in the best interest of any capitalist nation to take over a non-allied country not to own them, but to strip them of their resources. In that respect we're not much different from those who want to own the countries anyways, since territory means land, and land is a resource.

Then why do the countries we democratize keep ending up being world economic leaders? We don't weaken them. We strengthen them. Do you know what the second and third richest countries in the world are? Japan and Germany. Watch what becomes of Iraq and Afghanistan in coming decades.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Come now. You know the Germans started ww2, don't you?

Okay, that is so far off that it is clearly just a troll comment. So was the rest of your post. Good luck to you.

We already know what will happen to Iraq and Afghanistan, the same thing that happened to other countries that had democracy forced onto them. The majority will elect someone on the extreme side and oppress the minority. A strong leader will cease control of the country and create a dictatorship, just like Castro did in Cuba and Hitler did in Germany and Caesar did in Rome.

How red will your face be when China overtakes the US as the dominate leader of the world? A communist leader, that would be funny. It'll happen pretty soon if their economy keeps growing the way that it does and our military budget keeps growing the way that it is.

World peace will never happen as long as their is religion. Money is one thing, but the delusion of god is dangerous. Belief that god wants the US to invade Iraq caused the biggest financial collapse since 1929, the belief that allah wants all no-believers to die causes most of the instability in the middle east. It's been the cause of almost every major war.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

We already know what will happen to Iraq and Afghanistan, the same thing that happened to other countries that had democracy forced onto them. The majority will elect someone on the extreme side and oppress the minority. A strong leader will cease control of the country and create a dictatorship, just like Castro did in Cuba and Hitler did in Germany and Caesar did in Rome.

That did happen, but now the United States is a watch dog. That is why it did not happen in Germany or Japan after WWII. Look how far they have come. Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan are less capable than they are?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How red will your face be when China overtakes the US as the dominate leader of the world? A communist leader, that would be funny. It'll happen pretty soon if their economy keeps growing the way that it does and our military budget keeps growing the way that it is.

China has been rising because they have been increasing their level of capitalism. Without doing that more, they will never pass us. However, if they do become as or more capitalistic than us and surpass us economically, they have my applause. I welcome it. I am sick of the United States being the fucking Daddy of the world. I want the entire world to be successful like we are and to stop hating us because they are so jealous while not doing what it takes to be successful. I would love for us to live in the shade, finally, and I want the best for the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

World peace will never happen as long as their is religion. Money is one thing, but the delusion of god is dangerous. Belief that god wants the US to invade Iraq caused the biggest financial collapse since 1929, the belief that allah wants all no-believers to die causes most of the instability in the middle east. It's been the cause of almost every major war.

Religion is very dangerous, but accompanied with the civilization and intellectual advancement that come with democracy and capitalism, it is relatively tame.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That did happen, but now the United States is a watch dog. That is why it did not happen in Germany or Japan after WWII. Look how far they have come. Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan are less capable than they are?

Yes, religion is more prevalent there than they were in post-WWII Germany or Japan. Extreme religious can be used by powerful and evil people to get the support of an ignorant base *cough*BibleBeltRepublicanParty*cough*

Someone will gain power, using religion to connect with the people. The Shiites are the majority, by a long-shot, they hate the Sunnies. The bloodshed will continue, and democracy will collapse. The only reason it works here is because people aren't oppresses very much and extremists who want to revolt by force are kept at a minimum.

She Sunnies believe that Allah wants them to control the world, they will take it by force if democracy doesn't go their way because Allah makes it right and will reward them in the afterlife.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, that is so far off that it is clearly just a troll comment. So was the rest of your post. Good luck to you.

So if you don't believe ww2 started with the german invasion of Poland, what do you think started it, and what were the reasons?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was right there with you until the last part. I agree that only scum gets elected because they are the most manipulative and power hungry. I despise politicians. However, they have to please the public to keep their power. Pleasing the public includes preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, preventing other countries from taking over the world, and preventing invasions. It is not all about resources. Was stopping the Nazis all about resources? No, they really did try to take over the world. Was the Cold War (which includes the wars in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan 80's, and Central America) all about resources? No, the Soviets with their puppets really were trying to take over the world. What about the Civil War? It had to be fought for many reasons. War is sometimes necessary.

The Nazis started the war though. They were fighting for control, for land, and for dominance over a religious group. The civil war had one side fighting to maintain their resource (slave labour). War was being fought for resources. I'm talking about those who start the wars. I can agree that war is necessary only in the name of those who are defending themselves or others. In reality though, war is not always fought for the good side, and with such sadistic people in the government, I'm sure there are plenty of shady things going on that we are not made immediately aware of.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why do the countries we democratize keep ending up being world economic leaders? We don't weaken them. We strengthen them. Do you know what the second and third richest countries in the world are? Japan and Germany. Watch what becomes of Iraq and Afghanistan in coming decades.

Economic power has little to do with what kind of government a country is run by, though I do agree that the countries we meddled with turned out to be financially powerful. On the other hand, China, a communist country, is a considerable financial juggernaut. When we did mess with countries like Japan and Germany though, we also ushered in capitalism, which is independent of government.

Originally Posted by Invader

The Nazis started the war though. They were fighting for control, for land, and for dominance over a religious group. The civil war had one side fighting to maintain their resource (slave labour). War was being fought for resources. I'm talking about those who start the wars. I can agree that war is necessary only in the name of those who are defending themselves or others. In reality though, war is not always fought for the good side, and with such sadistic people in the government, I'm sure there are plenty of shady things going on that we are not made immediately aware of.

That's probably usually true, but I don't think it was the case when the North started war with the South. It also was not the case in our overthrow of the Taliban. They were a terrorist organization that harbored Al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and they had to go. This current war in Iraq has been a continuation of the first Gulf War due to 12 years of ceasefire violations, and the first Gulf War was a rescue of a taken over nation... that (You're right at this point.) had been giving us resources.

Originally Posted by Invader

Economic power has little to do with what kind of government a country is run by, though I do agree that the countries we meddled with turned out to be financially powerful. On the other hand, China, a communist country, is a considerable financial juggernaut. When we did mess with countries like Japan and Germany though, we also ushered in capitalism, which is independent of government.

Totalitarian regimes typically don't let capitalism fly. They either impose socialism or just rob the country blind and let them starve, like the Hussein regime did. Capitalism has a history of coming with democracy and being exclusive to democracy. China is rising in economic power because they are becoming more capitalistic. The less the government meddles in the economic affairs of its citizens, the less totalitarian it will be.

OMG...

STOP!

I didn't mean to start a quotewar!

The main point is that although you guys may have different opinions on how to acheive it, you all agree that peace is good and that the world would be better off with peace in the end, disregarding wether or not it would take a war to get us there.

Don't fight. Love.

Peace is what it's all about, man.



(Btw I'm gonna bust out a new peace image every post until you guys stop fighting )

I don't care what governments the ntions of the world have, so long as they get the job done (run the country), provide for their people, and are ruled by leaders with enough sense in their heads to realize that it might be a good idea to stop flinging bombs at each other and killing each other. If you meet those three key points, you're cool with me.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

provide for their people

The problem is that some people, you can tell by their arguments, don't want this. They call it communism.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The problem is that some people, you can tell by their arguments, don't want this. They call it communism.

Will you provide for me? I'm getting kind of tired of this work thing. You owe it to me!!!

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

Don't fight. Love.

Peace is what it's all about, man.

I like your attitude.

Ironically, the peace sign is usually used to mean, "Fuck you." I'm glad that is not how you mean it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Will you provide for me? I'm getting kind of tired of this work thing. You owe it to me!!!

As long as you provide for me, that's how a proper blend of socialism and capitalism works. What's this about not working? How are you going to provide for everyone else without a job? Joblessness is how your dark lords scare you, you're sounding more and more like the mindless hillbilly that most people think of when people think of conservatives than someone with a law degree.

Capitalism on necessities causes price spikes. You know that the FCC mandates that the only difference between a generic and name brand drug is the sugar coating? That's it. So the difference between a 20 cent generic pill and the 20 dollar brand name is 19.80 worth of sugar. The doctors give you the more expensive one because the insurance companies are paying for it, which is why insurance rates grow at >10x inflation.

Go ahead, desocialize the fire department. That's a service that people need. Business 101, if people need you, raise your prices. IT now costs you $200 to get your cat out of a tree and if something really bad happens like your house catches fire, it'll cost you $10,000. Of course, you have insurance, right now they cover replacement of your belongings, but now they have to cover the fire bills too, so their prices go way up.

Desocialize the police force. Poor areas will be overrun by gangs since no one can afford protection. People will either turn to guns (which the civilized world will call bad) or join other gangs for protection. Mob rule will insue.

Learn from history and business 101. Pure capitalism fails miserably.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

As long as you provide for me, that's how a proper blend of socialism and capitalism works.

Right. Since I will not be working, I will give you a dollar for every $1,000 you give me. It's only fair, unless you are heartless or something. You don't hate poor people, do you?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How are you going to provide for everyone else without a job?

That's your responsibility, you rich asshole. You fucking Nazi.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

you're sounding more and more like the mindless hillbilly that most people think of when people think of conservatives than someone with a law degree.

Ooh, you win. You said, "Hillbilly." Your trump card buzz word cannot be defeated.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Capitalism on necessities causes price spikes. You know that the FCC mandates that the only difference between a generic and name brand drug is the sugar coating? That's it. So the difference between a 20 cent generic pill and the 20 dollar brand name is 19.80 worth of sugar. The doctors give you the more expensive one because the insurance companies are paying for it, which is why insurance rates grow at >10x inflation.

Go ahead, desocialize the fire department. That's a service that people need. Business 101, if people need you, raise your prices. IT now costs you $200 to get your cat out of a tree and if something really bad happens like your house catches fire, it'll cost you $10,000. Of course, you have insurance, right now they cover replacement of your belongings, but now they have to cover the fire bills too, so their prices go way up.

Desocialize the police force. Poor areas will be overrun by gangs since no one can afford protection. People will either turn to guns (which the civilized world will call bad) or join other gangs for protection. Mob rule will insue.

Learn from history and business 101. Pure capitalism fails miserably.

I don't believe in pure capitalism. I believe in virtually pure capitalism. However, don't forget about the tax decrease factor when it comes to the idea of private fire departments and so forth. You accidentally left that out of the equation.

We very much need to privatize the school system and offer vouchers to indigents. Competition has a way of lighting fires under people's asses.

The tax decrease would not compensate for the tax hike.

Canadians pay 6% higher tax than we do, but $0 on health care. 6% of an average US salary (50K for simplicity) is only $3000, far less than the average american spends on health care. Remember, event hough your company is paying for it, that's money that could be going towards your salary. The average cost of health care is about $350/mo.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The tax decrease would not compensate for the tax hike.

Canadians pay 6% higher tax than we do, but $0 on health care. 6% of an average US salary (50K for simplicity) is only $3000, far less than the average american spends on health care. Remember, event hough your company is paying for it, that's money that could be going towards your salary. The average cost of health care is about $350/mo.

The money comes from the people one way or another. If you are talking about taking gobs of money away from the superwealthy to pay for my and your healthcare, you are talking about what I consider thievery. I don't want stolen money paying for my stuff. It also screws up their spending and their hiring, which ends up hurting the entire economy and coming back to get my wallet and yours.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I like your attitude.

Ironically, the peace sign is usually used to mean, "Fuck you." I'm glad that is not how you mean it.

Thank you

And of course that's not how I mean it. I'm all about the positive side of things

In other words...

GODDAMN POLITICS JACKIN' MAH THREAD!!!

In new and improved other words...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter

War is inevitable, no doubt about it. There's no getting rid of it. As long as there are humans who think differently from others, there will be humans who attempt to get rid of those who think otherwise.

As long as people still cling to this idea, it will be true. All that is reinforcing its validity is the belief in it.

Someone hand Xaqaria a cookie. :bravo:

Sorry, but it’s come time for me to express my views on the “war for peace” thing…

If only everyone in the world would just agree to stop the fighting...





Humanity’s never-ending lust for war saddens me… throughout all of history, there has always been war. Never has the entire Earth, the whole of humanity, been united in peace. But we can do it. We have to do it.

These days there are so many important things for humanity to spend its collective time, resources, and brainpower on. How to stop our path towards the permanent alteration or even destruction of Earth’s climate, for example. War is not on that list.

Woes, now you're into the political conversation. Here we go. :yumdumdoodledum::yumdumdoodledum: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity? I don't see it that way. What I think is... Getting fucked for peace is like fighting for virginity.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

Humanity’s never-ending lust for war saddens me… throughout all of history, there has always been war. Never has the entire Earth, the whole of humanity, been united in peace. But we can do it. We have to do it.

Yes, in the way that lions can stop attacking gazelles and the two species can just live in harmony and love on each other.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The money comes from the people one way or another. If you are talking about taking gobs of money away from the superwealthy to pay for my and your healthcare, you are talking about what I consider thievery. I don't want stolen money paying for my stuff. It also screws up their spending and their hiring, which ends up hurting the entire economy and coming back to get my wallet and yours.

The superwealthy don't create jobs, their companies do. Their companies have a completely separate taxation. I thought you had a law degree? Again, lots of money doesn't create a strong economy moving money creates a strong economy. The rich pay hefty taxes that go to the poor, the poor buy things that are manufactured by the weathy's companies. That cycle creates a strong economy.

What you want is the wealthy buying things from other wealthy people... uh, that creates a cycle that excludes 80% of the population, ie, a weak economy.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The superwealthy don't create jobs, their companies do. Their companies have a completely separate taxation. I thought you had a law degree?

Who creates the companies, karate kid? Who expands them? Have you ever noticed how a lot of people create companies when they get rich? Why might that be? More pocket money results in more businesses as well as expansion of those businesses. That applies to businesses that are owned by one person, it applies to partnerships, and it applies to corporations, which are owned by stockholders. What you said does not deny it.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Again, lots of money doesn't create a strong economy moving money creates a strong economy. The rich pay hefty taxes that go to the poor, the poor buy things that are manufactured by the weathy's companies. That cycle creates a strong economy.

Do you HONESTLY not think there is a correlation between amount of money and movement of money? Do you really want to deny it? Take issue with the rules of first grade arithmetic too while you are at it.

The poor don't start businesses, much less big ones. Also, the more money you give to the poor, the less drive they have to work, which slows down the generation and therefore movement of money.

I still want you to send me that money I demand. Where is it? Don't be a Nazi.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

What you want is the wealthy buying things from other wealthy people... uh, that creates a cycle that excludes 80% of the population, ie, a weak economy.

No, that is not all I want. I want the entire nation to be part of and benefit from a productive economy. Socialism is not productive. You are completely ignoring the fact that it is the rich who create jobs.