As for me governance is not for man,it's not for man to even direct his step, do you agree on that?That is why peace is elusive.
2007-03-24 16:50:03 · 6 answers · asked by james 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We were headed in that direction in the 70's when the nuclear proliferation treaty was signed, however the 80's brought Ronald Reagan and diplomacy took a back seat to the star wars campaign, while it looked good on paper it really did very little for world peace. Yes the leaders of` every country have to set down and set goals of world peace or the world is in trouble with never ending war.
2007-03-24 17:52:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the notion of individual states and sovereignty is too strong. If we take the UN as an example - it struggles to reach a consensus in many issues, and furthermore, struggles to implement a strategy because all states have different ideas on how they should act.
Without a universal government, I find it difficult to see leaders agreeing on a global peace treaty. But how brilliant would that be...!
2007-03-25 01:29:19 · answer #2 · answered by tvdh 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are too many political enviroments, thus too many political goals. Add that to the human failures of all of the countries of the world, and you will never have world peace.
2007-03-24 23:54:35 · answer #3 · answered by freemanbac 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, man is not made that way so it will never happen
2007-03-25 00:34:44 · answer #4 · answered by Kye H 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'll have fries with that !
2007-03-28 04:19:45 · answer #5 · answered by greenhollow2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they really want to, yes.
2007-03-25 03:11:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋