NationStates Jolt Archive

does peace really work anymore? do people still change things with activism, or has things changed so that we need violence to obtain what we need? The United States was founded on violence, so is it time for a new revolution, or can you REALLY change something with protest?:mp5:

go ahead, i dont care how many ak's you have, you not going to defeat the US millitary

Everybody says that they want peace, but when it comes down to it and they're brought to the negotiating table with their enemies they suddenly remember that what they really want is victory.

Of course you can change things with protest. But not everything, and if you are championing a cause that doesn't have majority support, you haven't a hope.

It don't really matter any way history tells us that when things get to bad the people will revolut and change the people in power.

So I guess that when the state of the world(whichever part you live in) gets too shitty then revolution will happenn.

"Peace" is a purely theoretical state of affairs, the existence of which we deduce because there have been intervals between Wars.

I probably don't know any better but I don't think "real" peace would ever exist... :(

"There's no way to peace. Peace is the only way." - A.J. Muste

Violence has always been the greatest force. The difference with peace is that it's much more fragile, but doesn't involve nearly as much death.

peace is overrated, if you want peace we need war.

easily summed up by one mr. jack handey.

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

or, also from him:

"Think about world peace... while you're doing that I'll be over here stealing your stuff."

Of course peace is possible. Peace doesn't mean the absence of conflict, however, but rather the absence of violence. A town can not be said to be at peace when bullies routinely pummel their victims, and where domestic violence is rife. Yet, a town engaged in renewal, in dialogue, in argument, in debate and change can be said to be at peace if violence is not used to affect change. Not all revolutions begin or end in violence, or maintain themselves through violence.

"Peace" is a purely theoretical state of affairs, the existence of which we deduce because there have been intervals between Wars.
That's as pointless as saying "War" is a purely theoretical state of affairs, the existance of which we deduce because there have been intervals between periods of Peace.

Everybody says that they want peace, but when it comes down to it and they're brought to the negotiating table with their enemies they suddenly remember that what they really want is victory.
Right, that's going in my list of possible quotes for signatures.

Of course you can change things with protest. But not everything, and if you are championing a cause that doesn't have majority support, you haven't a hope.
Most causes that have majority support are already legislation.

Everybody says that they want peace, but when it comes down to it and they're brought to the negotiating table with their enemies they suddenly remember that what they really want is victory.
Damn, that is true.

go ahead, i dont care how many ak's you have, you not going to defeat the US millitary

um... ok, i never said anything about defeating anyone, so uh, well.... if you think about it, a few assainations with the right people waiting in line could defeat the us military. couldnt it? theretically?:sniper:

does peace really work anymore?

Yes. Of course. What a silly question.

Everybody says that they want peace, but when it comes down to it and they're brought to the negotiating table with their enemies they suddenly remember that what they really want is victory.
In my mind peace would be a victory in and of itself.

In my mind peace would be a victory in and of itself.
Isn't that precious.

Isn't that precious.
I try.

I try.
:)

does peace really work anymore? do people still change things with activism, or has things changed so that we need violence to obtain what we need? The United States was founded on violence, so is it time for a new revolution, or can you REALLY change something with protest?:mp5:
There is no such thing as peace. Just wars, and the time between them

There is no such thing as peace. Just wars, and the time between them
I think I said that... :p

Ok Sinuhue, your turn. ;)

Peace does work, but you have to give it a chance to find out.

Peace does work, but you have to give it a chance to find out.
One of the guys who said that got nailed to a cross. Three others I can think of were shot. Yikes! Peace can be dangerous!

Peace is just fine as long as you don't concede to much in order to acheive it.

One of the guys who said that got nailed to a cross. Three others I can think of were shot. Yikes! Peace can be dangerous!

Yes, but look at all the people who said violence works who were shot.

does peace really work anymore? do people still change things with activism, or has things changed so that we need violence to obtain what we need? The United States was founded on violence, so is it time for a new revolution, or can you REALLY change something with protest?:mp5:
Answers:

1. It never has, at least for very long.

2. Violence as a way of "getting things we need" has never been acceptable and is not acceptable now.

3. Protest alone has never been a solution. It is only when a majority of the voting populace agrees with the goals of the protest that it becomes viable.

Yes, but look at all the people who said violence works who were shot.
"live by the sword, die by the sword"