No. I do not believe on person can establish world peace. Let's say you are trying to do it but the people around you do not want it or do not believe in what you are trying to do then there will not be much of a difference since the world we are talking about here includes the people in it. So in this case I think it is the decision of the majority that will work if world peace is what we needed.
2007-09-01 18:52:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Honey S. 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
Niether. One would create turmoil through looseless spending on peace attempts and the other would complain that there's too much looseless spending involved.
It needs to be someone who is great at unifying people under one cause, peace. A religeous leader might be frowned upon by opposers (ie. how many Americans would follow a muslim if one happened to be the best?). For some reason celebrities seem to have a strong influence though no matter how famous, they can never seem to have enough of an influence. Perhaps any former politicians who most of the world seemed to enjoy (do any exsist?).
What we really need is a well respected figure. Not a politician. Not a saint or rabbi. Just a great philosipher or philanthropist or speaker that can really bring people together. Someone who works off of one roof, and only one: peace.
In fact, we had one. Ghandi. Too bad he only had enough time for his oart of the world. The great thing people like him influence other great leaders, take Martin Luther King. Too bad we shoot these people instead of electing them!
2007-09-02 01:33:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonimo 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, Christ, Siddhartha, the alleged prophet Mohamed couldn't do it, so just one person can't establish world peace. Each person in the world first needs to realize within themselves that everyone must live together before world peace can be realized. As long as there's Islamic terrorists and other zealots world peace will never happen.
2007-09-02 01:35:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by cartiphilus 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No one person could ever establish world peace. If there were, a liberal would come by and screw it up. I would say a person interested in world peace would be Conservative, world peace doesn't start by supporting abortion.
2007-09-02 01:34:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rocman 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Ok, you have to define "peace"
There are two ways I can think of that can force people into peaceful coexistence.
1. Scare them and rule over them with an iron fist (anti-christ scenario)
2. Destroy most of the world so that only a few human remain who are smart enough to begin a new world government (Star Trek scenario).
2007-09-02 01:22:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by http://www.wrightlawnv.com 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yeah, they call him The Antichrist
so it will probably be a liberal
2007-09-02 01:56:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by jonnyrotten 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I doubt it will ever be one person... I think perhaps, one God, called by whatever name the religion needs... that is our only hope for actual world peace.
Humans are too greedy and too faulty.. remember, we are only human!
2007-09-02 01:36:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Debra H 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A better question would be why would they want to?
But, no, there's what, 194 different countries?
And what is "world" peace?
I'm against "world" or "global" anything.
This "global" economy isn't working out so good, is it?
2007-09-02 01:23:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by tom p 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
A liberal, Conservatives only want to dominate and kill people that aren't like them.. especially the neo-cons...
2007-09-02 01:25:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
i don't think it possible. man's inherent nature is one of conflict. some try to overcome it but until we evolve into better human beings...war will be on the table.
2007-09-02 01:28:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
3⤊
0⤋