NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, the Vortex Corporation Institute for Peace Studies (VCIPS) has released a study in which world peace is declared impossible. The main arguments used are:

-History indicates war is inevitable. For instance, in the 1945-2003 time period, 100 to 150 armed conflicts in or between states were fought. Every 6 months, a new armed conflict started. At each random point in time, 30 armed conflicts were present.

-States still have policies that have the State Paradigm as policy. This paradigm dictates that military security is the first and foremost priority for each state. Also, it is often feasable for election-based systems to gain quick and positive results. In such a case, short victory through violence is preferred over long term negotiations.

-States with the power to emerge victorious through violence, will often choose that option, simply "because they can".

-Scarce resources are becoming even more scarce. As time proceeds, oil, gas, wood, clean environment, food and water become more scarce, and create new reasons for conflict. The growing world population increases the effect of this problem.

-Mass media create new ground for conflict. The media benefit when they can bring sensational news. Therefore, they often present situations as more polarised and grave than really is the case. Also, they often reinstate conflict by returning old information to the attention of the public. Also, the media always bring an interpretation of the truth, which can create new grounds for conflict. After all, objectivity is by defenition impossible.

-Projection. It is feasable to go to war when you have internal problems. In this way, one can divert attention from those problems to the war.

-Conflict and war against a common enemy creates a unified nation, that is prepared to accept hardships. Also, a common enemy can legitimize spendings on defence and certain governmental actions, such as raising taxes or a draft.

-Some conflicts have escalated beyond solution. Israël, Kashmir and Indonesia are all regions were conflict has so many geographical, religious, economical and political grounds, that a solution is simply impossible.

-Terrorism will always exist. There will always be men and women of extreme ideology, that consider violence and fear the onl way through which their objectives can be used. Armies are not suited to wage a war against terrorism, because of the flexible and cell-based organization of terrorists. Hence, terroristical violence will always exist.

-The Crusader paradigm. Organization such as the UN and others have a policy that allows violent intervention in states were such is deemed needed. Whether their reasons are just or not, as long as violence is seen as a valid instrument to end conflicts, war and violence will always exist.

-For some parties, war and violence have positive effects. The media, the arms manufacturing industry and some governments clearly benefit when armed conflict is fought. As long as this is the case, such benefits are a stimulant to keep using violence as a conflict solution.

Nobody disagrees?

I certainly don't.

~Lady Serendis nos Fithurin
Prefect of Imperial Defense and Homeland Security
Eternal Noldorin Empire of Menelmacar

Well that's good. This is also a part of my argumentation for an oral exam on thursday :D

Makes sense. But... this might get fashioned into an excuse for war mongering. World peace can be possible if we remove all pea-brained world rulers *Cough* Bush *Cough* and extremists, but it will take a long time...

Then the issues of scarce resources, overpopulation, religious conflict, conflict created by subjective media attention and terrorism still stand.

yeah...we might as well end up totally screwing earth and heading into space looking for new planets to colonize... NOOO! I DUN WANNA LIVE IN STAR TREK!!!!! Lol...

The only way to attain peace is to eliminate sentient life.....but I don't want to die, and I don't think anyone else does either. So it is a physical impossibility to have peace.

Impressive. We aggree with this.

IMPERIAL NAVY PLATINUM SEAL OF APPROVAL

AWARDED THREAD OF THE MONTH

Impressive. We aggree with this.

IMPERIAL NAVY PLATINUM SEAL OF APPROVAL

AWARDED THREAD OF THE MONTH

8) Thanks man

good lord something i agree with coming out of the mouth of a capitalist. well, mostly i agree with.

-History indicates war is inevitable. For instance, in the 1945-2003 time period, 100 to 150 armed conflicts in or between states were fought. Every 6 months, a new armed conflict started. At each random point in time, 30 armed conflicts were present.

a fact oft touted by the left to point out that the world is becoming more, not less, chaotic.

-States still have policies that have the State Paradigm as policy. This paradigm dictates that military security is the first and foremost priority for each state. Also, it is often feasable for election-based systems to gain quick and positive results. In such a case, short victory through violence is preferred over long term negotiations.

go network paradigm!

-States with the power to emerge victorious through violence, will often choose that option, simply "because they can".

yep. might want to pick up a little ic introspection considering your current company.

-Scarce resources are becoming even more scarce. As time proceeds, oil, gas, wood, clean environment, food and water become more scarce, and create new reasons for conflict. The growing world population increases the effect of this problem.

of course wars are rarely fought over these any more, or at least not war in the way you mean. these resources are usually secured through economic and trade terrorism.

-Mass media create new ground for conflict. The media benefit when they can bring sensational news. Therefore, they often present situations as more polarised and grave than really is the case. Also, they often reinstate conflict by returning old information to the attention of the public. Also, the media always bring an interpretation of the truth, which can create new grounds for conflict. After all, objectivity is by defenition impossible.

generally, violence sells. show violence people get angry and demand more violence. media outlets happily publicisize new violence and cycle repeats.

-Projection. It is feasable to go to war when you have internal problems. In this way, one can divert attention from those problems to the war.

GWB.

-Conflict and war against a common enemy creates a unified nation, that is prepared to accept hardships. Also, a common enemy can legitimize spendings on defence and certain governmental actions, such as raising taxes or a draft.

GWB.

-Some conflicts have escalated beyond solution. Israël, Kashmir and Indonesia are all regions were conflict has so many geographical, religious, economical and political grounds, that a solution is simply impossible.

only beyond solutions within this paradigm. as a resident of the middle east i can speak first hand to the racism that exists on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and solutions require the de-emphasis of cultural identities on both sides. this will not happen, of course, until these regions undergo globalized development, which will not happen until the petro-dollars cease to flow. let's talk again in 2050.

-Terrorism will always exist. There will always be men and women of extreme ideology, that consider violence and fear the onl way through which their objectives can be used. Armies are not suited to wage a war against terrorism, because of the flexible and cell-based organization of terrorists. Hence, terroristical violence will always exist.

define terrorism. the state can undertake a terrorist campaign, much as Israel has undertaken against various insurgents within territory they have claimed. the US government has, on several occasions during its history, used terror tactics against anarchists and 'communists' in the name of national security.

what you're taking about is the neo-guerilla war waged by states without the economic means to raise armies, not terrorism. terrorism is something else, and while neo-guerilla armies can be terrorists, not all terrorist are guerillas.

-The Crusader paradigm. Organization such as the UN, SATO, CACE and others have a policy that allows violent intervention in states were such is deemed needed. Whether their reasons are just or not, as long as violence is seen as a valid instrument to end conflicts, war and violence will always exist.

i want to ask: can you point to any event where the CACE as a group used force against anyone? can you point to an event where a CACE member was the aggressor in a conflict? i'm serious, back this assertion up or just admit you've got nothing.

-For some parties, war and violence have positive effects. The media, the arms manufacturing industry and some governments clearly benefit when armed conflict is fought. As long as this is the case, such benefits are a stimulant to keep using violence as a conflict solution.

in a post-fordist economic paradigm war is, in fact, never profitable. if you could perhaps flesh out your arguments here you'll find that wars that drag on (the current Iraq slaughter) end up costing more than a state can gain from them, largely because of the new economic structures in place. in 1942 you could depend on patriotism from your companies, but you can't depend on multi-nationals to do anything but cut jobs and flee to safer environs. to say nothing for capital strike.

I always look for quality, and reward common sense. :D

Your prize includes a $1 billion donation.

Well done VC on a good thread.

You get a cookie for this. (Sorry Rave.)

@Seocc:

The positive effect of a war needs not be just economical. It can also be social, political or something else of intangible nature.

And since CACE has mutual defence policies, it indicates they are prepared to use violence. Every alliance of nations is. It's just that I thought about CACE as a name before another alliance.

Now as for terrorism, that is hard to define. Peace reseachers have defined it as "any use of violence, threats or intimidation intended to reach the goals of an individual, state or organization through means of fear and intimidation". But what I meant was that not a single country in the world is able to prevent terrorism in its current shape. Combine that with the fact that some individuals will always see violence as the way to go, that gives you terrorism without something to stop it properly.

Also, it is a good thing to see we share some mutual opinions. Different ideologies, even belonging to different blocks of power, needs not mean we should flame everything we hear from one another.

Of course, the world is always on the brink of war, no questions asked. Just in thee past few years we are founded, we were attacked 3 times.

As well, sometimes war can create positive effects. That way, our military is better trained, and will be able to take on other invaders of Omzian Democratic Republic.

We will officially put this in our... "files". Good document.

--Ministry of Military Management

Thanx Omzz

<stuff>

Time to add to my list of why I need to go to war. ALL the good reasons are here! Thanks Vor :wink:

<stuff>

Time to add to my list of why I need to go to war. ALL the good reasons are here! Thanks Vor :wink:

Added disclaimer:

No sentient beings, be that civilians, soldiers or interns, were harmed during the preparation, execution and presentation of this study. The Vortex Corporation is not responsible for any further harming of sentient beings, animals, or for any material damage as a result of the statements in this document.

The Famous GRadenkian Think thank institute, Institute of Strategic Defense has this to stamp upon reading the paper presented by Vortex Corporation.



SEAL OF APPROVAL
Institute of Strategic Defense

Bah, pseudoscience. There is a biological imperative to cooperation, just as there is to competition, but coooperaiton is a evoluitonary advantage. War, as has been famously pointed out, is the health of the state. With the end of the State, war can end too. This is a long, long road, but peace is attainable. All of the "facts" in the Vortex study are conditions that are subject to change, not unalterable posits. Peace will take a revolution in the hearts of humanity, but change is the only constant in human history, so sucha revoluiton is quite possible. It has happened many times before.

(On the specifics of Indonesia, for instance, we're nowhere near the point of the conflict being insoluble -- gotong royong/mutual aid remains a strong tendency, and conflict in most situations is very recent indeed. Most conflcits are manufactured by vested interests which are fast losing power, and would have lost it already if not for the efforts of President Shrub to subsidize violence.)

An excellent document. It is unfortunate that we cannot live without violence...the very thought of violence seems instinctively implanted in our minds. Perhaps this is an instinct of Mother Nature that the "civillized" man cannot kick?

We, of course, will make a duplicate of the file and store it...somewhere.

OOC:I was thinking...if the Earth is having the major problem of a population explosion...is war a way to reduce the population and solve this problem? I shudder at the thought.

Crownguard's response to Tanah:


Actually, the structure of a state does not create "war", in the sense of violent conflict. Violence, raw force, has ALWAYS been evident throughout our society, gather more than 2 people together and eventually, you will find they disagree.

While this is fine when we consider these people "civilized" (stretch of the imagination, how can you be civilized without a civilization???), and generally benevolent, how long will it take to degenerate to struggle for survival? Your assuming they would think similarly, a major flaw.

Anarchy does not mean PEACE, it means the struggle for dominance without a direction. True "enlightened" anarchy, one in which there WOULD be peace and no State, requires the people to be conditioned to accept such a state, to not desire power, and to act on each other's behalf. That is NOT natural (as can be seen with our Neolithic forebears), and will not happen without a directing force, hence, a government.

Thus, anarchy and peace are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a society dedicated to individualism, limited world resources, and means to power. It would take one person to disagree, and that is easily done enough. There wont be "peace" in an anarchy; if such a thing is possible as universal peace, IF mind you, it would be found in a structured format. It requires direction, and cannot rely on human instincts towards kindness/altruism, etc. Such feelings derive from the desire for the common good, and unification into a society dedicated to common good would require a directive force, a State.

And that is my piece on this, good job Vortex.

OOC: Khanates, you'd think so, but historically speaking war may only depopulate small, certain areas. On the larger scale people always breed faster than they can be killed, even at WWII levels of killing.

The positive effect of a war needs not be just economical. It can also be social, political or something else of intangible nature.

true, but in the modern world you won't see those benefits salvaging a toasted economy. if you look at those nations that used war to bring social unity, like say Fascist Germany and Italy, they were not capitalist, and since the government could control industry they were able to prevent capital flight and capital strike. in a modern capitalist nation a LONG war will cost them more than they can gain; the US is fast approaching this point, as the dwindling support for GWB attests to.

And since CACE has mutual defence policies, it indicates they are prepared to use violence. Every alliance of nations is. It's just that I thought about CACE as a name before another alliance.

well, as has been shown a million times, people like to pick on non-capitalists, putting us in a stick-together scenario. we are prepared to use violence to defend ourselves, as is explicitly stipulated by our charter, but like you said, this is not special. of course you can't point to us using force, so i'd appreciate it if you removed the CACE from your example and replace it with a more appropriate alliance, like the GDODAD.

Anarchy does not mean PEACE, it means the struggle for dominance without a direction. True "enlightened" anarchy, one in which there WOULD be peace and no State, requires the people to be conditioned to accept such a state, to not desire power, and to act on each other's behalf. That is NOT natural (as can be seen with our Neolithic forebears), and will not happen without a directing force, hence, a government.

Evolutionary advantage accrues to those who cooperate, not those who compete.

People used to think there was no such thing as human rights. Through a process of education (by individuals far more than governments) over centuries, we now beleive that human rights do exist. Ideas change.

Through a process of education, the urge to violence can also be reduced. It is possible that it can be eliminated. Therefore, the possibility exists that peace can be achieved. It is a very hard task, but the case that peace is impossible is unproven. My own case is also unproven, but it is possible which is all that i'm arguing. Since it is possible, people of good will are called to strive for it.

The Knootian Clingendael institute for strategic analysis finds your argumentation more then suitable. While war may not be inevitable in another, fundamentally different, kind of society it certainly is in the modern world. However this does not leave NS nationleaders without a responsibility to strive for peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Ad for CACE being a bad example: as far as I know the goal of 'CACE anticapitalism' has always been to bring about world revolution of one revolutionary class or another, and then institute a classless society or another kind of socialist utopian state ar some point. The millions of Red forces now being drawn to SeOCC right now are also a testimony to that hostile world view. Theoretically you are prepared to do it. I'd also like to point that you do not agree on this within the CACE. *points to pacifism debate*

WOMBAT NEWS
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid87/p774c9289f86c7e91718c66be085f17f7/faa7d1d4.jpg

WOMBAT NEWS
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid87/p774c9289f86c7e91718c66be085f17f7/faa7d1d4.jpg

OOC: Yay! I got a Wombat Seal of approval!

Also, I've removed the names of SATO and CACE from the document.

IC:

@Seocc

You might think no gain can be resulting from war, but surely one would agree that a war, for instance, fought for the purpose of conquest can be very profitable for the conqueror? Regardless of the ethical concerns involved, the colonial and imperialist periods of human history proved this. European countries such as Spaign, Portugal, the Netherlands and Great Brittain have all risen to power because they were able to extract great riches, both financial and material, from conquered colonies. So regardless of the current situation in the world, war does have the potential to be profitable.

@Tanah Burung

As long as jealosy, envy and rage are human characteristics that we posses from the moment we are born, violence exists.

BB4B

(Bump before bed, y'all)

Well it looks like Arms sales will be a growth buisness...

Get your Klaymore Kitty Today!

@Tanah Burung

As long as jealosy, envy and rage are human characteristics that we posses from the moment we are born, violence exists.

You assume that these are inherent characteristics from the moment we are born. This is an unproven assumption.

Even if violence exists, which unproven, we are capable of higher reasoning that can overcome violence.

*message to King Karl von Nustraat*
"Yo, King, we've just recieved a study from Old Earth; The Vortex Corporation says that world peach is impossible."
"World what?"
"Peach, sir... umm, I mean, maybe I read this wrong, it might say Peace, I mean..."
"Intel, didn't I tell you to find literate advisors?"
"Sorry, Sir."
"OK, so world peace is impossible, huh? Well, DUH! Nations like Thunderstraat exist!"

@Tanah Burung

As long as jealosy, envy and rage are human characteristics that we posses from the moment we are born, violence exists.

You assume that these are inherent characteristics from the moment we are born. This is an unproven assumption.

Even if violence exists, which unproven, we are capable of higher reasoning that can overcome violence.

Not really. Our crave for killing and violence is an ingrained instinct that nature implanted in our minds, which seemed to be carried along as we changed from animals to humans. It can be kicked, but it will be extremely hard.

You might think no gain can be resulting from war, but surely one would agree that a war, for instance, fought for the purpose of conquest can be very profitable for the conqueror? Regardless of the ethical concerns involved, the colonial and imperialist periods of human history proved this. European countries such as Spaign, Portugal, the Netherlands and Great Brittain have all risen to power because they were able to extract great riches, both financial and material, from conquered colonies. So regardless of the current situation in the world, war does have the potential to be profitable.

try finding a modern example though; you're bringing up ancient history from a bygone era. monarchies used to work, now they're falling in on themselves, giving way to liberalization. look at modern wars, look at the Iraq slaughters, and you'll find a very differant story than the one you're trying to tell. the US economy did not leap up during either war, and support for the war eroded as it continued, not increased as those agreeing with your assumptions might expect. there are no more colonies, only a dependant periphery; seriously, update the facts you're using to reason this stuff out.

WOMBAT NEWS
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid87/p774c9289f86c7e91718c66be085f17f7/faa7d1d4.jpg

Hey! You upstaged my seal!

aww.... :(

Oohhh, this one goes under Intesting in my favorits.
I feel as well that war is at this time unavoidable due to all the differences there are in the world and it will probably be that way as long as we humans insists on being human :wink:

I feel as if the only way to eliminate war and violence on its lowest level is to eliminate greed. Without greed people would have no need to disagree with each other or steal or lie or try to upstage each other. Unfortunatily, this would also eliminate compitetion and advancments in technology would creep forward at such a slow rate that we would still be in the dark ages, if that.

But if we were to eliminate greed, we would do nothing much more than eat and sleep and mate and such. Not too bad once you think about it ...

I feel as if the only way to eliminate war and violence on its lowest level is to eliminate greed. Without greed people would have no need to disagree with each other or steal or lie or try to upstage each other. Unfortunatily, this would also eliminate compitetion and advancments in technology would creep forward at such a slow rate that we would still be in the dark ages, if that.

But if we were to eliminate greed, we would do nothing much more than eat and sleep and mate and such. Not too bad once you think about it ...

OOC:

It does not follow that greed necessarily eliminates competition. It is possible to, for example, participate in sports without there being a carrot at the end. As well, other factors may replace greed in order to spur technological growth - such as the need to explore or to ensure the survival of the race.

My dictionary defines greed as "insatiate longing, especially for food or wealth" which to me means that a person already has enough but wants to live in excess. Maybe greed is a disease that should be cured.

Feel free to donate your computer and all the other "frills" you own to me, for I will certainly use them... :twisted:

Rather hypocritical to talk of greed when your well off, is what Im saying.

Feel free to donate your computer and all the other "frills" you own to me, for I will certainly use them... :twisted:

Rather hypocritical to talk of greed when your well off, is what Im saying.

OOC: Don't be ridiculous. There are other driving factors besides greed. And what makes you think that I don't donate my time and/or money?

Read up on the definition of greed, Crownguard, and get back to me, okay?

try finding a modern example though; you're bringing up ancient history from a bygone era. monarchies used to work, now they're falling in on themselves, giving way to liberalization. look at modern wars, look at the Iraq slaughters, and you'll find a very differant story than the one you're trying to tell. the US economy did not leap up during either war, and support for the war eroded as it continued, not increased as those agreeing with your assumptions might expect. there are no more colonies, only a dependant periphery; seriously, update the facts you're using to reason this stuff out.

I admit my examples are a little (if not totally) outdated, but I do believe that US Stock Markets saw significant increases in shareholder value because of the outbreak of the second Gulf War.

Also, apart from monetary advantage, there are other advantages:

-Political. Many revolution leaders that win their revolutions have a lot of initial support, simply because the won battle makes them look like strong and powerfull people to the population (when talking about intrastate war). Look at Africa and Middle-America, where new dictators are often perceived as the 'stronger man', because they win a guerilla.

-Goodwill. Peace interventions by the UN and NATO, resolving or at least restraining conflict, create goodwill in the international community for participating countries.

-And then some. I admit that 'advantages of war' is one of the weaker points in my line of reasoning, but I do think that people DO see an advantage in waging war. Otherwise, it would not be started. And it is that perception that counts, not reality. After all, people act upon what they think is reality.

Our crave for killing and violence is an ingrained instinct that nature implanted in our minds, which seemed to be carried along as we changed from animals to humans. It can be kicked, but it will be extremely hard.

Agreed. It can be overcome, but it will be hard. Therefore, war is not inevitable, because the pre-condition (urge to violence) can be overcome.

Maybe greed is a disease that should be cured.

watch out, you're starting to sound like an anti-capitalist.

Our crave for killing and violence is an ingrained instinct that nature implanted in our minds, which seemed to be carried along as we changed from animals to humans. It can be kicked, but it will be extremely hard.

Agreed. It can be overcome, but it will be hard. Therefore, war is not inevitable, because the pre-condition (urge to violence) can be overcome.

Suppose the Western world does that and succeeds. So then we have half a world with pacifists. So what do the other countries do? Exactly: grab the opportunity while it is still there.

And don't say we can eventualy make the whole world decide the become indoctrinated with pacifism. That's impossible.

I admit my examples are a little (if not totally) outdated, but I do believe that US Stock Markets saw significant increases in shareholder value because of the outbreak of the second Gulf War.

what? go do research, the stock market took a HIT when the war was announced, and if you look at the Q3 earning reports (from, say the WSJ) you'll see it was all related to productivity improvements, not investment. why is this important? people don't invest when the risk is high, and war creates risk, which means no investment; without new investment you cannot create new jobs, which is the keystone of a functioning capitalist economy.

the war has hurt the economy precisely because it keeps people from trying new things. wars create the impulse to hoard and capital goods is no exception; savings means investment decreases, means fewer jobs are created. war is bad for the economy.

as for this 'stronger man' thing, let me point to all the African countries where coup d'etats are endemic. not only would i not call these 'wars' since they are civil conflicts, but the support gained is short lived and usually gives way to another coup attempt, and coup attempts often turn into coup sucesses.

goodwill toward the UN and NATO. come on over to Riyadh and i'll show you what goodwill towards the UN and NATO looks like. the western world spends billions to intervene in Bosnia and invade Iraq, but leaves Africa largely to rot and does nothing about the repressive dictators that continue to sell them oil. nobody is fooled by the UN and NATO's goodwill.

Our crave for killing and violence is an ingrained instinct that nature implanted in our minds, which seemed to be carried along as we changed from animals to humans. It can be kicked, but it will be extremely hard.

Agreed. It can be overcome, but it will be hard. Therefore, war is not inevitable, because the pre-condition (urge to violence) can be overcome.

Suppose the Western world does that and succeeds. So then we have half a world with pacifists. So what do the other countries do? Exactly: grab the opportunity while it is still there.

And don't say we can eventualy make the whole world decide the become indoctrinated with pacifism. That's impossible.


Which raises an interesting question: what if man had been a pacifist from the very beginning? Well, perhaps we wouldn't even be having this discussion then.

Well, people do not only enjoy violence(though they may not show it), they relish it. It was an entertainment show for the Romans. In fact, people like violence so much, that as time passes we are inventing new ways to die-often violently and in a very messy fashion.

Agreed. It can be overcome, but it will be hard. Therefore, war is not inevitable, because the pre-condition (urge to violence) can be overcome.

Suppose the Western world does that and succeeds. So then we have half a world with pacifists. So what do the other countries do? Exactly: grab the opportunity while it is still there.

And don't say we can eventualy make the whole world decide the become indoctrinated with pacifism. That's impossible.

I'm arguing this from the point of view of logic. And that means examine your assumptions. You assume that the whole world purging the urge to violence is impossible. Before you can rest your argument, you must prove that assumption. So far, it's an unproven assumption. (Like most of modern economcis. Ever hear the one about the economist asked how to get out of a 40-metre deep hole? "First, assume a ladder...") The assumption that we are born with an urge to be greddy and violent is also unproven.

I'll concede that in current circumstances, the world is 99% predisposed to have wars, but 99% does not equal 100% -- probability does not equal certainty. What you've proved is that world peace is very unlikely in the short term, not that world peace is impossible forever.

Tanah: the problem is that either of us could be right. Unfortunately, we can't set up a controlled experimental environment and see what happens.

Seocc: Thank you for your comments and criticism. It has helped me a lot, and I will certainly use the stuff you argumented.

(Like most of modern economcis. Ever hear the one about the economist asked how to get out of a 40-metre deep hole? "First, assume a ladder...")

economists are stupid... here's the one that was told to me:

a physicist, an engineer and an economist are on a deserted island with no food but a huge pile of canned beans. they're sitting around trying to figure out how to get the beans when the physicist says, 'I've got it, we get some wood, start a fire, but the can on the fire, pressure builds up until it explodes, bang, we've got beans.'

The engineer replies, 'That'll work but I've got something less messy. We go get some wood, build a scaffold, get a pointy rock and set the rock at the end of a pendulum. swing the rock down, hits the beans, bang, can open.'

The economist nods his head and says, 'That's good too but I've got a more elegant solution. So assume we've got a can opener...'

this joke is actually rather famous, and has given way to the expression 'assuming the can opener.'

edit ps: TB and VC, if you're interested in reading a good book with a strong under current re: this violence stuff pick up Battle Royale by Koushun Takami. it's also a animated movie but the book is better because it lets you deal with the psychology of forty 15 year old kids forced to kill each other. very disturbing read.

The following is a response from the Ministry of International Review of the Nation of Kaden.

Summary: The report is flawed due to inadequate research and insufficient causality.

Reasons (a summary):

1- the report fails to define its primary term, "Peace". the definition will substantially effect the conclusions of the report.

2- much of the report is anecdotal, based on the predilections of European History, rather than the context of a global restructuring incorporating third world and emerging nations and economic interdependencies.

Position:
The Nation of Kaden is disinclined to accept the conclusions of the report and urges other nations to reconsider or closely examine the content, goals, and authors of the document.

1.

Peace in a negative sence:
Peace = the absence of war, the threat of war, or manifest physical violence on a large sca;e

Peace in a positive sence:
Peace = The absence of any difference between potential and act, and the absence of structural violence.

The studies concern the negative definition of peace

2.

The examples used are merely illustrating points that seem to have a global validity. However, if you have any arguments of your own that show world peace is possible, we would be more than happy to hear them.

Also, in those arguments, please don't start about human nature. Tanah Burung has illustrated that point sufficiently, and we can all agree that in that area, nothing is proven as of yet.

War will always grant profit to someone. Either the man who sells the weapons, to those who are hired to clean up the mess, there is always profit by one party.

It does seem intresting that war seems concented with the appearance of civilization. In much they appear to be derivied by similar forces of resource protection against others, and the desire to gain the resources of other groups. (what Terra called greed) yet at the same time it is not a factor of 'civilization' as demonstrated by the pre-history of north american tribes in the early 19th century.*

*In most terms hunter gather societies are not considered civilizations at least by archeologists. Of course most plains tribes did have trade, and may inherted atributes from the earlier Mississippian culture..

There are other things to worry about in conflict than war (which, according to the political science research community, is defined as 1000 battle-deaths or more) - research (Look through JSTOR, APSR, AJPS articles) suggests that there are actually many more situations in which nation states use signaling to avoid conflicts. For instance, threats of violence or armed conflict that never arise due to non-military escalations and eventual backing-down by one party or another. Conflict, armed or not, is simply an integral part of the human experience.

War is a sad fact, yes, but you cannot expect those who have the power and knowledge to be greater to be content. Don't you think those who do have the power and ability to be greater have a right (or even a psychological imperative) to do so?

Prime Minister
Republic of Calladria

Clarification of terminology accepted.
However, representative samples from a land area less than one-half of the earth, and even less of the world population, is not a statistically acceptable sample. Therefore, the Ministry stands behind its statement regarding flawed research.

Finally, the Ministry challenges the conclusion, to wit...Peace is not possible. The finding is a statistical absolute, indicating a zero probability. There is no evidence, based on the report, to support such a finding.

The Ministry does not argue that peace is easy, or even likely. But it does reject the conclusion that world peace has a zero occurrence potential.

1000 battle-deaths

Yup. And after 9/11, that little fact seems to legitimize the term "war on terrorism".

"War on Terrorism" - while I agree with the principle, it really blows the concept of national sovereignty all to hell, doesn't it? Tough to fight a quote-war-unquote when there are no real boundaries or physical territories to organize yourself around.

"War on Terrorism" - while I agree with the principle, it really blows the concept of national sovereignty all to hell, doesn't it? Tough to fight a quote-war-unquote when there are no real boundaries or physical territories to organize yourself around.

I also think it's not a very suitable term. Even in guerilla, you're fighting within a certain territory with certain predetermined geographical features.

There is a way to stop all wars forever. Unfortunately, it involves complete annihilation of the human race. (And in the NS world, also of all other races.)

There is a way to stop all wars forever. Unfortunately, it involves complete annihilation of the human race. (And in the NS world, also of all other races.)

There is a way to stop all wars forever. Unfortunately, it involves complete annihilation of the human race. (And in the NS world, also of all other races.)

Maybe greed is a disease that should be cured.

watch out, you're starting to sound like an anti-capitalist.

OOC: You must think that greed is only restricted to capitalist systems. Anytime you have humans in the mix, there is some element of greed. For example, the USSR was very corrupt.

OOC: You must think that greed is only restricted to capitalist systems. Anytime you have humans in the mix, there is some element of greed. For example, the USSR was very corrupt.[/quote]

True. Ever read "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith? he lived there for years and detailed the black market and political corruptions.

OOC: You must think that greed is only restricted to capitalist systems. Anytime you have humans in the mix, there is some element of greed. For example, the USSR was very corrupt.

no, actually, my RL political theories bet on people's greed. and corruption is seperate from greed, since one can be corrupt because they lust for power above money etc etc. all i said was you sound like an anti-capitalist, since anti-capitalists are notorious for trying to wipe out greed, while capitalists continue to bank on it.

OOC:

Corruption is seperate from greed now? Ho ho! Please enlighten me. Face it, greed is not restricted to just money.

"War on Terrorism" - while I agree with the principle, it really blows the concept of national sovereignty all to hell, doesn't it? Tough to fight a quote-war-unquote when there are no real boundaries or physical territories to organize yourself around.

While our citizens may freely comment on this and any other subject as they choose, in light of our recent proclamation of neutrality, we officially refrain from comment.

We do, however, stand by our original statement regarding the report.

OOC:

Corruption is seperate from greed now? Ho ho! Please enlighten me. Face it, greed is not restricted to just money.

Well, it is greed that fuels corruption.

Commonwealth Sociologists have concluded that, whilst world peace is not impossible, it is rather very, very improbable. As has been pointed out, interests between individuals and peoples will always provide a basis for conflict. However, there is always the probablitiy, admitted a small one but one nonetheless, that world peace may be achieved. This would require that people conform to the same ideals and beleifs, with no grounds for competition of any sort, ie the basic principals behind 'pure' Communism.

Therefore, if and only if every person in the world agrees on everything, there would then be world peace. As this is unlikely anytime soon, it can be concluded that world peace will never be achieved in our life time, or for a very, very long time.

Chairman Sondar,
United Commonwealth of Vervun

Therefore, if and only if every person in the world agrees on everything, there would then be world peace. As this is unlikely anytime soon, it can be concluded that world peace will never be achieved in our life time, or for a very, very long time.

okay, here's what's bothering me; since when did all disagreements end in violence? you seem to be assuming that as long as people disagree they're going to get out guns and shoot each other. that's not a grim world view, it's just ignorant.

I didn't say disagreements ended in violence, but in conflict. By conflict I mean, say, arguments. Debates. Continued conflict would evantually lead to violence and yes, people pulling out guns (or some other form of weapon...fists suffice) and shooting/hurting each other.

OOC:

Corruption is seperate from greed now? Ho ho! Please enlighten me. Face it, greed is not restricted to just money.

Well, it is greed that fuels corruption.

Thank you for making my point. :)