in Iraq.
2007-01-09 05:59:19 · 17 answers · asked by Arifeen 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Where trust does not flourish, neither does peace: as peace is also mental, social, and spiritual.
2007-01-10 18:22:44 · answer #1 · answered by Source 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Drew is absolutely right. Peace can be enforced for a time, and everyone will hate the enforcers. Look at the Romans, or the Greeks, or the Babylonians. The squabbling nations that they conquered hated them, but culture as a whole made huge strides that would not have been possible in a more fragmented society tied up in tribal warfare.
And about Iraq? Pros and cons. People's position on the war seems to have a lot more to do with their political leanings than their moral beliefs, which is unfortunate. How many lives will our invasion save? How many will it cost? How many lives will it imporve, and how many lives will be made worse? It is not the black and white issue people make it out to be.
2007-01-09 07:59:39 · answer #2 · answered by amicietta 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An old saying is : "He who wants peace must prepare for war" but I seriously doubt you can achieve peace, with or without a gun, unless the warring factions want peace. Some people on this earth have been at war everyday of their life going back to before Christ. We can probably achieve relative peace, but there will always be those who want revenge, are greedy, want more, want the power and control and will do anything to achieve it. That is the main cause of wars. Religion is an excuse not a reason and guns don't even figure because in history they fought wars with rocks and other projectiles, including hot oil. so go figure. If a people has something you really want and they dont want to share, you might try negotiate with them, but when that fails some revert to violence, hence the problem.
2007-01-09 06:14:41 · answer #3 · answered by P.A.M. 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well as a Buddhist practitioner I do not believe in the use of violence to achieve any means, however I will tell you an old legend and you take out of it what you wish.
There was a young Indian Leader, back in a time were the kingdom was at war. For years and years there was destruction from different lords attacking eachother in the pursuit of power. The young prince wanted peace, and he raised the largest army in the entire kingdom, he then went province by province defeating at the point of a sword every lord that opposed him, until everyone was subject to his rule. One of his diciples asked him "if you are set on peace, why have you caused so much destruction"? The prince smiled and told the diciple to take a crew and survey the entire kingdom. The kid was surprised to note tha since the Prince's unification of the kingdom there was finally peace, all the lords under one leader would no longer struggle for power. The story then states that the prince passed on his wisdom to his children, and in turn they did the same, so that for 200 years of his family's reign not a single man died again at the point of a sword".
Take it as you will, its not entierly fictional but there is a lot of legend included of course.
2007-01-09 06:26:19 · answer #4 · answered by kkcoz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it can. Historically, peace can always be achieved given massive overuse of military power. The problem is that the peace that you end up with isn't really the proper sort of peace.
We commonly use peace to mean "the absence of violence," but true peace is more than the absence of violence; it is its antithesis. It is genuine harmony; it is the positive embrace of unity, not merely the negative denial of violence. What we would end up with in Iraq if we achieved "peace" through purely military means would be a state where everyone lived in constant fear. There would be soldiers with loaded guns on every street-corner. There would be frequent random searches of every house. There wouldn't be any more killing, but instead there would be a brutal, overwhelming and unending military occupation.
2007-01-09 07:25:48 · answer #5 · answered by Drew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fighting for peace is like fcking for virginity.
You see, war is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate.
We have money for war, but we can't feed the poor, and schools have to sell cookies to buy new text books. Now you ask, will peace ever be achieved by using guns? Maybe we should stop the violence and focus on the positive things in life. Maybe our tax money should go to our children and our homeless. And instead of negative messages, let's put out positive messages... Instead of "Stop Abuse" how about "Promote Respect"
How can peace ever be acheived unless we change the message of the world?
2007-01-09 07:03:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a loaded question. Check out americas second amendment, and get a good definition of peace on whatever scale you wish your argument to apply.
2007-01-09 06:11:14 · answer #7 · answered by killingtao 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way...there has to be complete dis armament to achive world peace!
2007-01-09 06:06:52 · answer #8 · answered by lilbit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I don't see how peace can be achieved by the deaths of innocents.
2007-01-09 06:05:31 · answer #9 · answered by Jess 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only if they are used on the corrupt government leaders.. the people of this planet are all pretty likeable..
2007-01-09 06:24:25 · answer #10 · answered by Century25 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋