[Guest]

War is everywhere, all around us, in us. To think that peace is possible is something that will never happen. No matter where you are and what you do, there WILL be war.

....whose with me?

[Guest]

Next Question:

Do we really need all those troops over there to make it stable?

I have 4 good friends who have fought over there and each has a different answer

[Guest]

Next Question:

Do we really need all those troops over there to make it stable?

I have 4 good friends who have fought over there and each has a different answer

Definitely not near as many as we have, but we need them there. I actually had a conversation with my friend who's in Baghdad. He was telling me that even if we wanted to pull all the troops out tomorrow we'd never be able to for quite some time. We could lessen the number of troops, but in reality:

1) We'd still have to have troops to monitor all the American equipment there until it's all transported back.

2) An American presence has to remain to keep balance as well as to keep a sense of American 'authority' in the world

[Guest]

.... An American presence has to remain to keep balance as well as to keep a sense of American 'authority' in the world

- I think you cld say that statement needs different wording... why not add american values too Impervious

[Guest]

Two of them say its hopeless and that we should just leave and say sorry for messing everything up (basically)

One says that we need more to stabalize

and the other says we are doing what we need to be doing

[Guest]

- I think you cld say that statement needs different wording... why not add american values too Impervious

I'll go with that too. It's pretty accurate.

[Guest]

So, getting back to my topic. I'll answer first.

Not only do I think that world peace will never happen (not that I don't want it to), but I also don't think than anyone can ever achieve a level of total inner peace during their lifetime. I think that this is mostly because the wiser we become the more we realize how ignorant we really are. I think it is man's innate desire to always be learning, always be growing...but since perfection can never be achieved then neither can peace be achieved.

(actually, now that I wrote that I'm not 100% sure I agree with myself (uh oh...inner turmoil!) so I will be anxious to hear what you other philosophers think. )

[itachi-san]

This is a pretty good debate. I guess I'll add my 2 cents. I think world peace is completely achievable, just not any time soon. The first thing that has to go is organized religion (or if it somehow melds into one religion which probably won't happen). The second thing that has to go is territoriality which would maybe happen if the UN (or an organization that takes over for it) becomes functional, honest, respectful and essentially perfect in terms of territorial lines and regulations for each nation and standing up for those regulations. The final thing to go needs to be all the bigotry which would require a lot of cross-cultural sex so that our species becomes very ordinary with little physical difference across the globe. Sure it's less fun to look at, but that won't be for a very long time and is pretty inevitable anyway.

On the subject of Iraq, I think it was a huge mistake. The world backed us when we hit Afghanistan because it made sense after 9-11, but then we lost all support and defied the UN and the world and our nation's code of never preempting war by attacking Iraq. Now that all this has happened and the past can't be undone, I say we need to stay and fix the problem as best we can. The only way to "win" there is for the Iraqi people to take control for themselves which was the key component of the Surge benchmarks and has still not happened - not really the success they claim it to be. The only way for a war to be fought against Terrorist sects abroad is for the democratic world to unite and take them out, not the vigilante US. This again points to the ineffectiveness of the UN and the audacity of the US.

As for the US, we will not be a peaceful, righteous, constitutional nation until we disassemble the 2 party system we have. I see Obama and McCain as both highly flawed leaders and am once again not excited to vote for President. In fact, I've never been excited to vote for President because the Presidency really isn't the problem, it's the 2 party system and the corruption and personal investments made by almost all our politicians. I believe we should have at least a 4 maybe 6 party system and that our states need to have much more control over their laws. Less govt. more freedom more peace.

Speaking to the OP of the Topic specifically: I'd like you to define "war" more specifically because I believe that war with troops and human causalities, like Y-san said, is definitely declining and will be fazed out entirely at some point, maybe even this century. But war can mean anything. There are wars going on inside our bodies right now between cells and viruses, so it can be a very broad word.

[Guest]

So, getting back to my topic. I'll answer first.

Not only do I think that world peace will never happen (not that I don't want it to), but I also don't think than anyone can ever achieve a level of total inner peace during their lifetime. I think that this is mostly because the wiser we become the more we realize how ignorant we really are. I think it is man's innate desire to always be learning, always be growing...but since perfection can never be achieved then neither can peace be achieved.

(actually, now that I wrote that I'm not 100% sure I agree with myself (uh oh...inner turmoil!) so I will be anxious to hear what you other philosophers think. )

So you are saying that we are nieve in not knowing how to attain peace? That the wiser we become the more we realize that it is not possible? In a way your fighting against yourself... you say since the old are wise and know a great deal, they know peace cannot be attained and in doing so why even try.

So in theory we should follow the wise and not even care about peace?

[Guest]

This is a pretty good debate. I guess I'll add my 2 cents. I think world peace is completely achievable, just not any time soon. The first thing that has to go is organized religion (or if it somehow melds into one religion which probably won't happen). The second thing that has to go is territoriality which would maybe happen if the UN (or an organization that takes over for it) becomes functional, honest, respectful and essentially perfect in terms of territorial lines and regulations for each nation and standing up for those regulations. The final thing to go needs to be all the bigotry which would require a lot of cross-cultural sex so that our species becomes very ordinary with little physical difference across the globe. Sure it's less fun to look at, but that won't be for a very long time and is pretty inevitable anyway.

On the subject of Iraq, I think it was a huge mistake. The world backed us when we hit Afghanistan because it made sense after 9-11, but then we lost all support and defied the UN and the world and our nation's code of never preempting war by attacking Iraq. Now that all this has happened and the past can't be undone, I say we need to stay and fix the problem as best we can. The only way to "win" there is for the Iraqi people to take control for themselves which was the key component of the Surge benchmarks and has still not happened - not really the success they claim it to be. The only way for a war to be fought against Terrorist sects abroad is for the democratic world to unite and take them out, not the vigilante US. This again points to the ineffectiveness of the UN and the audacity of the US.

As for the US, we will not be a peaceful, righteous, constitutional nation until we disassemble the 2 party system we have. I see Obama and McCain as both highly flawed leaders and am once again not excited to vote for President. In fact, I've never been excited to vote for President because the Presidency really isn't the problem, it's the 2 party system and the corruption and personal investments made by almost all our politicians. I believe we should have at least a 4 maybe 6 party system and that our states need to have much more control over their laws. Less govt. more freedom more peace.

Speaking to the OP of the Topic specifically: I'd like you to define "war" more specifically because I believe that war with troops and human causalities, like Y-san said, is definitely declining and will be fazed out entirely at some point, maybe even this century. But war can mean anything. There are wars going on inside our bodies right now between cells and viruses, so it can be a very broad word.

War is anything and everything you make it. Down to living biomass to the huge destruction of the earth. Thats why this topic is so alive right now, there is much to discuss about because war is a very broad thing to talk about.

Anyway i am honored that you take part in this thread in which i created.

As for the presidents, yes they are very corrupt... the whole system is! It's the lesser of two evils, Obama and McCain..... lets just hope they are not that evil.

[Guest]

This is a pretty good debate. I guess I'll add my 2 cents. I think world peace is completely achievable, just not any time soon. The first thing that has to go is organized religion (or if it somehow melds into one religion which probably won't happen). The second thing that has to go is territoriality which would maybe happen if the UN (or an organization that takes over for it) becomes functional, honest, respectful and essentially perfect in terms of territorial lines and regulations for each nation and standing up for those regulations. The final thing to go needs to be all the bigotry which would require a lot of cross-cultural sex so that our species becomes very ordinary with little physical difference across the globe. Sure it's less fun to look at, but that won't be for a very long time and is pretty inevitable anyway.

Well worded, very well worded. I agree that it is achievable, I just don't think it will ever happen. I could seen territoriality dissipating, even cross cultural sex (especially seeing as how it is very common now days. The main thing I do not see happens and obviously you do too, is the combination of one religion.

On the subject of Iraq, I think it was a huge mistake. The world backed us when we hit Afghanistan because it made sense after 9-11, but then we lost all support and defied the UN and the world and our nation's code of never preempting war by attacking Iraq. Now that all this has happened and the past can't be undone, I say we need to stay and fix the problem as best we can. The only way to "win" there is for the Iraqi people to take control for themselves which was the key component of the Surge benchmarks and has still not happened - not really the success they claim it to be. The only way for a war to be fought against Terrorist sects abroad is for the democratic world to unite and take them out, not the vigilante US. This again points to the ineffectiveness of the UN and the audacity of the US.

I don't think I can honestly think of a time since I became old enough to understand politics when the UN was 100% effective, The US is definitely a vigilante nation. It's like that one character in every movie that never takes the advice from the smart one and ends up in a pickle 3/4 of the way through it. The 9/11 counter-attack should have been an in and out operation..period.

As for the US, we will not be a peaceful, righteous, constitutional nation until we disassemble the 2 party system we have. I see Obama and McCain as both highly flawed leaders and am once again not excited to vote for President. In fact, I've never been excited to vote for President because the Presidency really isn't the problem, it's the 2 party system and the corruption and personal investments made by almost all our politicians. I believe we should have at least a 4 maybe 6 party system and that our states need to have much more control over their laws. Less govt. more freedom more peace.

Well technically its more than a 2 party system....but I know what you mean.

Personally, when I first registered to vote I chose independent. Didn't really feel like choosing a side as it were. That and I'm beginning to get annoyed with each side pointing the blame at the other for where we, as a country, are at economically etc. I mean seriously fix the problem, don't make it worse...

As for the presidents, yes they are very corrupt... the whole system is! It's the lesser of two evils, Obama and McCain..... lets just hope they are not that evil.

Eh I don't know, McCain has been commonly referred to as Bush 2.0. Obama change his mind more than most men change their underwear. Can't say I'm happy to vote either. Maybe I'll just vote for Nader

[Guest]

Eh I don't know, McCain has been commonly referred to as Bush 2.0. Obama change his mind more than most men change their underwear. Can't say I'm happy to vote either. Maybe I'll just vote for Nader

I want Sarah Palin to take over the world!!

[Guest]

I want Sarah Palin to take over the world!!

Ha ha, hmm a gorgeous woman taking over the world...not too shabby...

[itachi-san]

I want Sarah Palin to take over the world!!

I actually really like her too. I can tell she's no liar, that she actually does do things that are right in my mind, and that she won't give in to corruption. I doubt McCain or Biden would either, but their personal views are way off from what I want to hear. I'm sure McCain and Biden are really great guys (not sure about Obama) but I don't like any of them for President. Senators are basically useless. The congress actually isn't a do-nothing congress. they do a lot and it all hurts us based on their own political gain.

I feel like only Mayors and Governors should have a shot at being President. The only good thing about voting for McCain is that he probably won't run for a second term due to his age, which means Sarah Palin would run and I would very much like her to be President right now. If the Republican ticket was switched, then I'd be psyched.

I know there are more than 2 parties, but the others almost literally get no attention. and since they will especially get no attention this election i feel like voting for them right now would just be a waste. then again, i have felt that way before and the trend just continues, and they will never get their 5% to become legitimate. Even though I support a qualifier for candidates to be taken seriously, I find it outrageous that our Presidential debate is only between 2 people. As much as I want to vote for a third party, I may have to vote for the (evil EVIL) which is why, once again, i'm not happy about voting.

Ha ha, hmm a gorgeous woman taking over the world...not too shabby...

lol, yeah, she is pretty hot. she'd definitely be a teacher i would hit on

[Guest]

I actually really like her too. I can tell she's no liar, that she actually does do things that are right in my mind, and that she won't give in to corruption. I doubt McCain or Biden would either, but their personal views are way off from what I want to hear. I'm sure McCain and Biden are really great guys (not sure about Obama) but I don't like any of them for President. Senators are basically useless. The congress actually isn't a do-nothing congress. they do a lot and it all hurts us based on their own political gain.

I feel like only Mayors and Governors should have a shot at being President. The only good thing about voting for McCain is that he probably won't run for a second term due to his age, which means Sarah Palin would run and I would very much like her to be President right now. If the Republican ticket was switched, then I'd be psyched.

I know there are more than 2 parties, but the others almost literally get no attention. and since they will especially get no attention this election i feel like voting for them right now would just be a waste. then again, i have felt that way before and the trend just continues, and they will never get their 5% to become legitimate. Even though I support a qualifier for candidates to be taken seriously, I find it outrageous that our Presidential debate is only between 2 people. As much as I want to vote for a third party, I may have to vote for the (evil EVIL) which is why, once again, i'm not happy about voting.

lol, yeah, she is pretty hot. she'd definitely be a teacher i would hit on

Oh heck yeah, If it were Palin and Clinton, I'd choose Palin any day. I like her too, she's very honest and straightforward...I think it should be more like Man of the Year with Robin Williams where an individual form a 3rd party took the world by storm .

Then again I don't know that America could handle that.

EDIT: Typos

Edited September 5, 2008 by Impervious

[unreality]

did you hear of the corruption scandal she was involved in?

Though she is hot so that cancels it out lol jk

PG: Just clearing up a point, I was speaking hypothetically. I can tell from your cyber-smug tone that you think you beat me somehow because I talked about your chosen personalized deity as if they were real (which they aren't), but I assure you it was hypothetical. I was showing that "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war", but anyway, all that is a moot point since I think everyone in this topic now agrees that religion needs to go for world peace to happen

[Guest]

I'll go with that too. It's pretty accurate.

It's pretty wrong - American authority - in a land that is not ready for change, if or when it is, will it choose an American style of policies ? This seems somewhat like indoctrination; dogmas never work because people want to break free - 'Fighting for peace' is not the answer. Putting ANY stamp of enforced authority is going to cause unrest and reactionary attitudes and that leads further to certain factions of extreme/fanatic uprising. Anyway another example has been set with regards to occupation or annihilation (my way or the highway). Hitler-ism if that is a word - for us or against us, better than ethnic cleansing but a long way from peace. A very long way.

[Guest]

PG: Just clearing up a point, I was speaking hypothetically. I can tell from your cyber-smug tone that you think you beat me somehow because I talked about your chosen personalized deity as if they were real (which they aren't), but I assure you it was hypothetical. I was showing that "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war", but anyway, all that is a moot point since I think everyone in this topic now agrees that religion needs to go for world peace to happen

uh, who exactly is coming off as cyber-smug?? ;D

So, let me get this straight, UR; are you saying that you think that every time a nation engages in war that nation is evil? or that it's leader doesn't have good intentions? does that mean that each time a nation is called to war that you think it would be better that they NOT protect themselves, that the leader SHOULD NOT show concern for the citizens lest they be considered evil? Hmmm. very interesting. I'm hoping you never have children of your own one day; you might just sit back and watch them suffer, not bothering to protect them, or even to equip them with the skills they need in life to survive. I feel sorry for your future children because obviously you, as a dad, would rather they lie down in the face of adversity than fight for what they believe: for what is just and true.

[itachi-san]

uh, who exactly is coming off as cyber-smug?? ;D

So, let me get this straight, UR; are you saying that you think that every time a nation engages in war that nation is evil? or that it's leader doesn't have good intentions? does that mean that each time a nation is called to war that you think it would be better that they NOT protect themselves, that the leader SHOULD NOT show concern for the citizens lest they be considered evil? Hmmm. very interesting. I'm hoping you never have children of your own one day; you might just sit back and watch them suffer, not bothering to protect them, or even to equip them with the skills they need in life to survive. I feel sorry for your future children because obviously you, as a dad, would rather they lie down in the face of adversity than fight for what they believe: for what is just and true.

come on pg, this is way harsh. ur never implied any of this stuff. and you're both cyber-smug

[Guest]

did you hear of the corruption scandal she was involved in?

Though she is hot so that cancels it out lol jk

PG: Just clearing up a point, I was speaking hypothetically. I can tell from your cyber-smug tone that you think you beat me somehow because I talked about your chosen personalized deity as if they were real (which they aren't), but I assure you it was hypothetical. I was showing that "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war", but anyway, all that is a moot point since I think everyone in this topic now agrees that religion needs to go for world peace to happen

Not to beat a dead horse or anything but there is a lot in this that bothers me.

It sounds a little pompous to say in a finality way that God does not exist. No one here can ever know that for sure, so as not to offend let’s stick to what we can know for certain when it comes to peoples intimate beliefs. Or at least use hypothetical wording.

Further more, the statement "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war" doesn’t make any sense. If the Bible does tell the truth then its God is the being who created the concepts of right and wrong and good and evil. Therefore anything He does to this Earth, whatever it may be, is justified because it’s His and it’s not up to us to judge Him. If the Bible is not telling the truth, then it doesn’t matter if its God is a good one or a bad one.

Totally not suppose to sound like preaching, just trying to stick within the presuppositions of the argument.

[Guest]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything but there is a lot in this that bothers me.

It sounds a little pompous to say in a finality way that God does not exist. No one here can ever know that for sure, so as not to offend let's stick to what we can know for certain when it comes to peoples intimate beliefs. Or at least use hypothetical wording.

Further more, the statement "if the Bible tells the truth, then your god is not a good one, and calls for war" doesn't make any sense. If the Bible does tell the truth then its God is the being who created the concepts of right and wrong and good and evil. Therefore anything He does to this Earth, whatever it may be, is justified because it's His and it's not up to us to judge Him. If the Bible is not telling the truth, then it doesn't matter if its God is a good one or a bad one.

Totally not suppose to sound like preaching, just trying to stick within the presuppositions of the argument.

No theist but 'lead us not into temptaion' it apllies to all - suposedly for you to decide your own fate. But that's another story.

[Guest]

LIS, I dont understand.

[unreality]

nobody does

PG: Whoa - all I said is that religion needs to go for there to be world peace! Where did you pull that other stuff from? I see how you associated "evil" with "calling for war" from my words, but I didn't mean them as a consequence of the other, ie, your god would be both of those, separately. Like I've said multiple times, I believe necessary war is necessary, not so for unnecessary war. It seems like you snapped and went all pity-card on me, when I didn't imply any of the stuff you said...

NM_EJL: so if this god exists, why am I judging him/her/it/them? But I see your point... slaughter and sacrifice must be an okay thing to do then!!!! lol

Enough of this religious discussion please, it's not getting us anywhere. And PG is starting to flip out or something...

[Guest]

come on pg, this is way harsh. ur never implied any of this stuff. and you're both cyber-smug

Ok, ok. You're right, that's not what UR was implying...but he also has no stinkin' clue what he's talking about, nor would he want to relate his little theories to himself. He, like most athiests or God-haters, look at(not study) a single passage of the Bible completely out of context and then try to create an argument using the 9 words they read. It's just blatant ignorance.

Did God (the Father) in the old testament condone wars? Did he initiate the wars? Some of them. And yes, there were many wars...the Old Testament gives the history of the nation of Isreal over a period of about 3500 years. Were there wars during that time, you bet! And God, being a loving father, protected his children from other nations that threated to pervert or destroy them...sometimes that even meant leading the charge. What exactly about that makes God evil? To me, it just verifies that God is a loving God who cares for his people. When Jesus arrived on the seen, God's chosen people grew to include not only Jews, but also Gentiles (everyone else.)

[unreality]

You know nothing about me; I've read almost the entire OT (not much of the NT however)!!!! And I agree with you - this God did protect one single race from other races...

Why?? Why aren't they all of the same importance? What makes the Israelites more important? Why can't they all be important?

edit: the other tribes have lives, and feelings, too. They have families and emotions and desires

Edited September 5, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

You know nothing about me; I've read almost the entire OT (not much of the NT however)!!!! And I agree with you - this God did protect one single race from other races...

Why?? Why aren't they all of the same importance? What makes the Israelites more important? Why can't they all be important?

edit: the other tribes have lives, and feelings, too. They have families and emotions and desires

That is a huge question that has a perfectly legitimate answer, when looked at in context. But it should be addressed in a different thread.