Peace, is it a lost cause?

Riddle101

Wow haven't been on this side of boards in a while:). Anyway do you think Peace is now a lost cause? I say this because as a person who hate war i can't help but notice how the world is troubled with so much of it. Whether it being Americans in Afghanistan, Russia in Georgia, African countries in disputes or Isreal and any Middle Eastern Country we alway seem to have some sort of conflict going on, and now that i think about it, when has the world ever been in a peaceful time. So i've come to the conclusion that what's the point in the UN or Green Peace, what are they really doing? They're not helping anyone and their always going to be bypassed by countries who think they know better. I've always had a strong belief in the thought that the world can co-exist but now my beliefs are starting to become tainted and i've basically given up hope. I don't care anymore. All i can be thankful for is the fact that atleast i'm Irish and in a country that isn't involved in conflicts except the Justice System maybe:(

But dose anyone else think that Peace is a lost cause? should this world continue to suffer because of those politicans behind these wars who can happily go about their business knowing of the atrocities that they've to people the familes lost and people killed makes me think it must be a thankless job to work in the army

Kama

Damn, I'd love to be able to answer you, but I don't think I can.

Seeing the slide of the world in the last 10 or so years towards endless war takes a lot out of me, the endless sabre-rattling towards the enemy-of-the-day, whether Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, Russian, China, whoever...but being for peace in the absence of war would seem an empty and meaningless position.

Similarly I find a lot of the 'anti-war' movement somewhat wrong-headed and conceptually confused...what does 'anti-war' even mean? Sure, you don't like war, but what on earth is one for if you are anti-war? (apologies to anti-war peeps, but this has bugged me a while) My impression is mainly to have an aggressive venting of antagonism, mostly against either the US or Israel, which seems several miles wide of anything that can plausibly produce any kind of peace.

I can't see a short-to-medium term reduction is the growth of hostilities worldwide, we have an increasingly multipolar world rubbing up against each other in a chase for scarce resources, which doesn't seem like a hopeful start. But giving up on the possibility of peace, due to the presence or likelihood of war, to my mind misses the point completely. But how peace can be successfully developed and encouraged, both within and between countries, remains an unanswered question to me.

mike65

Global peace was never achiveable.

Just a point to note - there are fewer conflict raging now than at any time in decades

http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=121
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4654&l=1

Mike

turgon

The EU worked.

Overheal

note your past tense

Kama

Yes, the recent outbreak of war between France and Germany was shocking

turgon

Well it worked to stop war. Now that the risk is gone I would hardly claim it has a role in preventing war between members. Except those wanting to attack the Irish of course!

Riddle101

turgon wrote: »

The EU worked.

Yes the EU did work, but unfortuately the EU is still just like the UN, always bowing down to the larger nations and because most EU countries are in NATO, the EU are rather biased in who they want to support

irish_bob

turgon wrote: »

The EU worked.

not according to the irish

jmayo

According to some people the EU is the reason that Germany and France/Britain having being at each other's throats over the last 60 odd years.
Of course they were not able or willing to prevent wars in the Balkans area of Europe or stop Russia's involvement in Georgia.

Maybe every country in the world should join the EU and then we might have peace, seen as the old McDonalds theory has been blown to hell since Yugoslavia/Serbia I beleive :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

According to some people the EU is the reason that Germany and France/Britain having being at each other's throats over the last 60 odd years.

It's almost certainly part of the reason.

Of course they were not able or willing to prevent wars in the Balkans area of Europe or stop Russia's involvement in Georgia.

None of those are EU members, so the point is rather moot.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost certainly part of the reason. None of those are EU members, so the point is rather moot.

Yes I know they weren't/aren't members, thus maybe we should make them members of the club and then see what happens ?
EU's actions in Balkans conflicts was joke as countries broke and did theirown thing for policial/historical reasons.
And before anyone uses this as argument for common foreign policy (i.e. Lisbon) would all countries agree on common foreign policy on these issues or would it be down to certain majority ?

We need a new McDonalds, perhaps Supermacs could do the trick

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

Yes I know they weren't/aren't members, thus maybe we should make them members of the club and then see what happens ?

If club membership were a magic wand, then that might be worth a try.

EU's actions in Balkans conflicts was joke as countries broke and did theirown thing for policial/historical reasons.
And before anyone uses this as argument for common foreign policy (i.e. Lisbon) would all countries agree on common foreign policy on these issues or would it be down to certain majority ?

As I recall, it's a unanimity thing. At least if the EU had a framework for a CFP, there would be some incentive to try to reach consensus on such issues. As it stands, what's the point?

brianthebard

Peace is a myth op.

McArmalite

As Gonzo journalist PJ O'Rourke would say - Give War a Chance.

turgon

brianthebard wrote: »

Peace is a myth op.

Theres no need to be so optimistic.

ChocolateSauce

Honestly, no. Peace is never a lost cause. But I've lost my idealism as I've learned how the world really works. I used to be a pacifist and declared that war never works, but I no longer think that. Peace talks only work when people are willing to talk. Sometimes (as in Congo, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia) peace talks will not work, and it is too urgent a situation to even try. Only direct and swift military action can hope to fix things.

Parents who saw their child being attacked wouldn't try and talk with the attacker, they'd intervene first and talk later. I think there are situations where an international force must go on peace making operations-every day they do not, people are killed.

eoin5

mike65 wrote: »

Global peace was never achiveable.

Just a point to note - there are fewer conflict raging now than at any time in decades

http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=121
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4654&l=1

Mike

Just to add to the list Stephen Pinker gave a very good talk on the decline of violence: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

brianthebard

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Honestly, no. Peace is never a lost cause. But I've lost my idealism as I've learned how the world really works. I used to be a pacifist and declared that war never works, but I no longer think that. Peace talks only work when people are willing to talk. Sometimes (as in Congo, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia) peace talks will not work, and it is too urgent a situation to even try. Only direct and swift military action can hope to fix things.

Parents who saw their child being attacked wouldn't try and talk with the attacker, they'd intervene first and talk later. I think there are situations where an international force must go on peace making operations-every day they do not, people are killed.

Which military action in Afghanistan are you referring to?