The world is full of nonsense fighting in the name of democracy, oil and God. Is time for peace and love?
2007-01-27 14:00:45 · 12 answers · asked by Lost. at. Sea. 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Did you have some background music to go with that? If so we could whip up a REALLY good tune.
2007-01-27 14:05:40 · answer #1 · answered by sqwirlsgirl 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm? Peace, no problem.
But Love? Wear a condom!
Because the problems you mentioned are really not caused by faith, fuel or federalism but by scarcity. All major conflicts thru-out history were based on economic need.
And all the neediest countries are those having the most babies, earliest in life.
Don't give up on peace & love. Just define them both as:
A global charity that rewards voluntary young recipients of a med-procedure* with education, internet, housing, phone-time, travel, etc provided they finish at least an associates degree including classes that explain the negative economic impact of fast population growth.
*the procedure would be a proven-reversible tubal ligotomy or vasectomy and recipients must have no kids.
They finish the associates degree and some community svc & the procedure is reversed. Now they can get pregnant.
But that education needs to hare the skell out of them on that issue.
Now THAT's what I call peace and LOVE!!!!
qewrty
2007-01-28 20:22:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Peace on whose terms? The world isn't fighting in the name of democracy, oil, and God. They're fighting for a world on their terms. It just so happens that no one can agree on what "livable terms" are.
Jeffrey Dahmer's livable terms involved killing other people for dinner. Ted Bundy's livable terms involved murdering women. Davie Berkowitz killed in the name of his dog, Sam. Would love and peace have helped these guys? No. They wanted what they wanted. Same with terrorists and other murderers... it doesn't matter who or what they fight in the name of, bottom line is, they want what they want and are willing to kill for it. No, I'm sorry, the West's version of "peace" and "love" often differs from others' versions of peace and love. So, peace and love are NOT the solution.
2007-01-28 17:21:52 · answer #3 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Respect, and peaceful coexistence, certainly. Love...that might be too much to ask. We are all human, certainly, but in many respects we are very different. Love is a fragile emotion. I'd rather see a solid foundation of mutual respect based on diplomatic endeavor leading to mutually assured coexistance, than focus on a starry-eyed belief that we all can bridge those differences enough to love one another. Not that it's not a laudable goal. Someday, maybe.
2007-01-27 22:20:03 · answer #4 · answered by functionary01 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We tried peace and love in the 60's and it obviously didn't work because not enough people were interested.
2007-01-27 22:06:11 · answer #5 · answered by commonsense 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's always time for peace and love. Good luck getting it to happen though.
2007-01-27 22:04:46 · answer #6 · answered by crabskulls 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's been time for peace and love.
2007-01-27 22:06:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
aaawww, isn't that sweet! Wake up you Mary!...War is the only answer, it's the only damn constant in the world...how do you hink you're able to get your starbucks in the morning w/o dodging arrows from Injuns!...War!- that's how...now go hug a tree and talk to a girl about 'your feelings' you sissy!
2007-01-28 03:18:01 · answer #8 · answered by theWord 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sure would be worth a try, wouldn't it? If only we could get the world's leaders to go along with it!!!
2007-01-27 22:10:55 · answer #9 · answered by LaraSue 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is THE ONLY SOLUTION.
2007-01-27 22:08:22 · answer #10 · answered by broken heart 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋