A world without war

[Laird]

I define war as the act(s) of violence perpetrated by an army against another army and/or against a country's infrastructure and/or against civilians. Under my slightly unorthodox definition, a war can consist of a single act of violence and needn't involve reciprocal violence - I construct the definition in this way to cover all such acts of aggression under a single banner. It's my contention that whilst there are understandable reasons why war has occurred and currently occurs, there is no reasonable justification for war to continue to occur, and it's my further contention that the world would unequivocally be a better place to live in with a complete absence of war. I don't want the discussion in this thread to focus upon challenges to these two contentions but of course I can't dictate how people choose to respond.

For simplicity's sake, I define an army to consist not only of soldiers and equipment, but also of all associated armaments including nuclear weapons. Under this definition, an army could consist solely of nuclear weaponry and of the personnel required to launch those weapons.

War under my definition entails at least one army. It follows then that a world without armies is a world without war. The disbanding of all armies (and the prevention of the assembly of new armies) is therefore one means of achieving the stated aim of this thread: a world without war. But how can we ever achieve this? Which nation will disband its army first in a world where everyone else is armed? And what about unofficial armies such as ad-hoc militias - how can we ever stop them from forming? I have a reasonably complete solution to the former problem and a partial solution to the latter.

There are a few reasons why a nation might not want to give up its army. I'll consider some of the trickier ones later, but to start with I want to consider this one: that it would be left defenceless in the event of an attack. In order then to persuade a nation to disband its army, one must first provide it with adequate defence. Here's where the first step of my solution comes in: rather than contributing troops and armaments to its nation-state army, each nation contributes troops and armaments to a global army. To kick this global army off, significant diplomatic efforts would need to take place to convince as many countries as possible to sign up to this approach, perhaps resulting in a treaty whereby most (or at least many) countries in the world sign up at the same time. From there I would hope that a snowball effect occurred whereby a significantly less armed and less dangerous world reduced each remaining nation's requirement to maintain an army such that remaining nations felt more comfortable in signing up to this approach too.

The more countries that signed up, the smaller (relative to the population that it's defending) the global army would need to be, because the smaller the size of the forces that it has to defend against would be. The ultimate goal is of course for all countries in the world to have signed up. The required size of the global army would then be practically zero: the only reason to maintain a force at all would be to defend well-governed countries against disruptive rebel and militia forces. Ideally, however, the world would have been gradually changing from a place where its citizens expected war as a matter of course to a place where they didn't understand how anyone could even contemplate war (or indeed any form of violence) as a solution. This process is of course a hugely complex one - involving such mammoth tasks as converting all rogue/fundamentalist states to saner, more peaceful forms of governance, eliminating civil unrest, and eliminating or at least reducing the economic gulf between the third and first worlds - and I don't intend to canvas all of the ways by which it would occur, partly because I haven't thought too carefully about them.

As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world. It would become harder and harder for militia to arm themselves with high-tech weaponry. Also, the generally more peaceful nature of the world would discourage the formation of militia. The ultimate goal would be a world where people were so generally satisfied enough with the state of their lives/nations that militias and rebel forces were unknown.

Earlier I promised to discuss some of the trickier reasons why a nation might not want to give up its army. I'll start with the USA, which won't want to give up its army because its army is a significant means by which it maintains and acquires further power. I suspect that it would be one of the last countries to sign up to the solution that I've proposed. I hold out hope however that it would eventually subscribe as the ideological momentum became overwhelming due to practically all other countries in the world subscribing. I'm not saying that it's an easy sell, just that it's possible given other changes that lead to a generally more peaceful, cooperative, equitable world. Also I project that eventually the USA's army would no longer be capable of performing this power-mongering role. A global army would judge world events impartially and would step in to defend countries against unjustified United States aggression. Also the USA would no longer have the excuse to act unilaterally by claiming that it is the most suitable defender of the world against injustice, because the global army would be a more appropriate candidate.

Another tricky reason why a nation might not want to give up its army is that it is currently involved in a conflict where it is asserting selfish interests and it recognises that a global force would be more impartial and hence that to give up its armed forces to global control would be for its selfish interests to suffer. Case in point: the Middle East. Here the main hope is for third parties to step in as mediators to resolve the conflict, or for pressure to otherwise be brought to bear through means such as economic sanctions or through public expressions of dissatisfaction with war such as peace rallies. Don't think that I'm being realistic? Then think: the demise of apartheid; the fall of the Berlin Wall. Once the conflict has been resolved, there is a good chance that in the after-glow of resolution the decision will be made to subscribe to this globalisation solution.

Finally, a nation might not want to give up its army because it is ruled by an oppressive regime that relies upon its army to suppress uprisings. This falls within the bounds of what I wrote earlier: that the world would need to gradually change into a generally more peaceful place in part through the conversion of rogue/fundamentalist states into saner, more peaceful forms of governance. Again, I'll reiterate that I don't have all of the answers but I believe that such states are unsustainable in the long term and are destined to fail anyway, and that there are peaceful means of hastening that process. The sorts of peaceful means that I'm talking about are the likes of the rallies that we witnessed recently in Burma.

The first step is the globalisation of all armies. The final step is the conversion of the global army from an armed force into a disaster-response organisation.

[Tomas]

.

What have you been smoking?


Tomas


7


.

[sear]

Laird,
I appreciate the topic.
But I'm not sure defining armies is the issue.

War results when loss of what we have seems less of a risk than keeping it.
-Diplomacy by other means- I believe is how Von Clausewitz phrased it.

It seems to me the best way to insure the end of war is to make peace just too damned attractive.

The secret to peace on Earth is global prosperity; and guaranteed consideration of minority views and needs.

[Laird]

Tomas: Where's your optimistic idealism gone?

sear: Agreed that global prosperity and guaranteed consideration of minority views and needs equals peace. We're working on the first bit over in the thread "the more entrenched injustices of the world...". Come and join us!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Laird,

Which nation will disband its army first in a world where everyone else is armed?

Switzerland is a good example of a neutral country, however the more free and prosperous nations should have some sort of defense force to act as a deterrent against dictatorships and other rogue states. However, Ironically, the business elites in the US have transformed their defense force into a rogue state by an abuse of power.

Here's where the first step of my solution comes in: rather than contributing troops and armaments to its nation-state army, each nation contributes troops and armaments to a global army.

We have that already, its called NATO, and they are in Afghanistan at the moment defending an American backed Natural Gas pipeline. The major problem I see with military forces is that the elite business classes can easily manipulate them to be used for imperial expansion under the pretext of a national defense threat. However, I suppose there is a slight threat to the Americans by Islamic extremists, but most of these radicals have been caused by immoral foreign policies in the region.

The major problem with NATO and UN influence is that they can send countries to war that might not have gone to war on their on accord. For instance: any moral outrage in the world can cause the members of the UN to pressure the richer states to send a peace force into the region, which results in the volunteering countries being caught in the crossfire between the two disputing forces.

To kick this global army off, significant diplomatic efforts would need to take place to convince as many countries as possible to sign up to this approach, perhaps resulting in a treaty whereby most (or at least many) countries in the world sign up at the same time.

Most of the developed rich countries are part of NATO, and the only difference is that the aims of NATO are to stand up to rogue regimes and dictators when they decide to expand and conquer into free democracies. As seen in the Korean War, when the North invaded the South, and the Americans, Canadians and others under the NATO banner intervened and drove the north back. And they probably could have set up a democracy there if it wasn't for the Chinese interference.

The ultimate goal is of course for all countries in the world to have signed up. The required size of the global army would then be practically zero: the only reason to maintain a force at all would be to defend well-governed countries against disruptive rebel and militia forces.

The real danger I see with a global army is if it is used by the rich classes to protect their assets, and continue to secure natural resources in less developed countries, as this is the function of the US imperial war machine at the moment. It is an extension of the corporate hand that has been entangled in the US government. And so it would be very difficult to prevent your global force from evolving into a corporate protection and expansion force.

This process is of course a hugely complex one - involving such mammoth tasks as converting all rogue/fundamentalist states to saner, more peaceful forms of governance, eliminating civil unrest, and eliminating or at least reducing the economic gulf between the third and first worlds - and I don't intend to canvas all of the ways by which it would occur, partly because I haven't thought too carefully about them.

This has been one of the aims of NATO and the UN, but their success rate is mixed. Overall, given both the pros and cons of each organization, it is probably better to keep them rather than banish them altogether. I disagree with Ron Paul on this one. Despite all their failures, they have lead to dialogue and diplomacy in many past confrontational situations. If there was nowhere for disputing parties to meet for peace talks then many more conflict would probably result.

As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world. It would become harder and harder for militia to arm themselves with high-tech weaponry. Also, the generally more peaceful nature of the world would discourage the formation of militia. The ultimate goal would be a world where people were so generally satisfied enough with the state of their lives/nations that militias and rebel forces were unknown.

It is possible that such a force could eventually evolve into a more peaceful humanitarian army, but as long as the corporate elites are controlling their activities, then there is always the possibility for unjust wars and activities. However, perhaps as technology progresses and humanity becomes more intelligent, the corporate elites will drop their imperial mindset in favor of something much more sane and rational.

A global army would judge world events impartially and would step in to defend countries against unjustified United States aggression.

Not necessarily, not if the same elites that control the United States military also control your global army. That is actually the direction the business elites are moving in, they want 4 world currencies – the AMERO, the EURO, an ASIAN currency and another currency for Africa and South America. And the business elites want to move in a direction of one global army with one global government that they control from behind the scenes. Actually, It would be better for commerce and business, but it would probably increase the amount of human rights violations especially in developing countries that can easily be bullied and taken advantage of by dominant powers.

[sear]

Thanks Laird. I'm on my way.

"Switzerland is a good example of a neutral country ..." Ryan

Yes, "neutral", but not disarmed.
By some (lame) criteria, Switzerland may be one of the best armed nations on Earth.

[Laird]

Ryan,

Thanks for your comments.

I'd like to clarify one point: current global armies exist in addition to national armies, whereas I'm proposing that a global army exists in place of national armies - the ultimate goal of course being that all national armies disappear and there is no longer any possibility of war.

You raise a good point about the need to avoid control of the global army by the corporate elites of the world. The global army would be controlled by democratic rule of its constituent nations' governments, presumably through diplomatic representatives. To the extent that a constituent government is beholden to big business, so presumably would that government's representative be beholden to big business. Rule of the global army would be a thoroughly democratic affair though, so it would take many bad apples to spoil the bunch. Really this boils down to a question of how much existing governments are controlled by big business - ensuring that a global army is free of corporate corruption is the same task as ensuring that its representative governments are free of corporate corruption.

[Sapius]

Laird,

Really this boils down to a question of how much existing governments are controlled by big business

You mean how many... sadly almost all, be it a rich or a poor country.

And yes, Ryan is quite on the mark.

[sear]

"the ultimate goal of course being that all national armies disappear and there is no longer any possibility of war." Laird

That won't do it.
Ban kitchen cutlery, and murders will be performed with garden implements and statuettes.

The U.S. National Rifle Association (NRA) has a slogan, -an armed society is a polite society-.

I'm not sure it makes sense to squander 6% of GDP on military.
Perhaps 3%, or 2% would be better.
But having a force like that around can be handy; to respond to a variety of emergencies.

And frankly, I'd rather send troops with military training and structure and discipline to a forest fire or hurricane ravaged city than send a bunch of fire fighters into military battle.

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

I suspect what's more important than trying to diminish military to zero is promoting parity, both in the nature of the force structure / arsenal; ie defensive, not offensive; and keeping it to a viable deterrent minimum.

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Ryan Rudolph]

Laird,

I'd like to clarify one point: current global armies exist in addition to national armies, whereas I'm proposing that a global army exists in place of national armies - the ultimate goal of course being that all national armies disappear and there is no longer any possibility of war.

A total independent global army could emerge slowly, but each country would need to become more economically connected and dependent on each other, and that is why the unified currency idea is a good one in that regard. It makes countries more connected, and it reduces the probability of conflict because they share the same currency. However, humanities consciousness would also need to mature significantly before such a system could work.

You raise a good point about the need to avoid control of the global army by the corporate elites of the world. The global army would be controlled by democratic rule of its constituent nations' governments, presumably through diplomatic representatives. To the extent that a constituent government is beholden to big business, so presumably would that government's representative be beholden to big business. Rule of the global army would be a thoroughly democratic affair though, so it would take many bad apples to spoil the bunch. Really this boils down to a question of how much existing governments are controlled by big business - ensuring that a global army is free of corporate corruption is the same task as ensuring that its representative governments are free of corporate corruption.

Think about this though – Each present member of the UN does not have an equal say in the decisions that are made through the UN, it all comes down to funding and tangling alliances. For instance: The US has the a lot of power in the UN because they are the top financial contributor and they are aligned with other powerful countries, and so their decisions get pushed through more often, and if the UN votes against the US plans, then they simply act without UN approval anyway, as they did in the Iraq war.

So the problem is that the strongest economies will be able to contribute more to prop up the global army, and so their voice will be weighed more at the bargaining table. And so smaller economies will have weaker democratic voices resulting in power imbalances. Also, the more powerful contributors may turn on other members if their ideas interfere with their economic interests abroad. An example is how Hugo Chavez has been demonized by the US because he kicked out US oil companies, and nationalized oil production within his country. And it is funny how the US labels Chavez a dictator, but he was actually elected democratically by his people. This is very similar to how Fidel Castro kicked the Americans out of Havana in the Cuban revolution, and it is no coincidence that these two leaders are now working together.

Basically, as long as human nature remains irrational, emotional, and ultimately feminine then such groups will probably always exhibit degrees of imperfection, insanity and injustice. So to the degree that humans are deluded is the degree that these groups and committees will function improperly. The problem is that your outward system idea (independent global army) cannot correct all the problems of human nature, as power structures, corruption and injustice will continue to occur as long as man remains in the barbaric primitive state that he is.

[Laird]

sear,

"the ultimate goal of course being that all national armies disappear and there is no longer any possibility of war." Laird

That won't do it.
Ban kitchen cutlery, and murders will be performed with garden implements and statuettes.

I did acknowledge in my opening essay that widespread global changes would need to occur before all ad-hoc militias were eliminated, but wouldn't you agree that the big wars rely on the existence of official, national armies, and that were those national armies to have been disbanded, much war simply could not have occurred?

I suspect what's more important than trying to diminish military to zero is promoting parity, both in the nature of the force structure / arsenal; ie defensive, not offensive; and keeping it to a viable deterrent minimum.

How can you justify the existence of any armaments at all given what you quoted below?:

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ryan,

As I've acknowledged elsewhere I'm not all that crash hot as an economist so I'll refrain from passing comment on your idea of unifying currencies, except to say that with my naive understanding it does seem like a good one.

My proposal for the governance of a global army is "one country, one vote", regardless of the size of the country or the contribution that it makes - in fact, it would be best if all countries contributed an equal amount of resources as far as is possible (obviously Pacific Island nations are going to have a hard time coming up with the goods so they'd get a partial exemption).

I agree that human nature poses a problem but I believe that this is a workable plan assuming that human nature at the same time improves.

[sear]

"How can you justify the existence of any armaments at all given what you quoted below?:" Laird

It may seem a baffling paradox (even to me).
I love the idea of purity of concept and conduct.
But bitter experience has taught me that purity in such matters as these is an invitation to huge trouble.

Pandora's Box has been opened too long Laird.
Shall we ban hunting?
If not, it seems to me my hunting rifle (with scope) would make a superb & deadly sniper rifle.

The science of nuclear weaponry is an open secret. It's on the Internet. The few missing pieces aren't anything a grad. school physicist couldn't figure out.

And the most deadly doomsday weapons of all will come not from physics labs, but from cloning labs; a highly fatal (Ebola Zaire / smallpox) extremely contagious disease might wipe out a third of Earth's human population in less than a year.

And if they do some serious genetic engineering; it might kill us all.

I love the idea of never having an automobile collision. But I buckle my seatbelt.
I love the idea of never needing a military. But this is Earth. Humans live here. I don't think eliminating military on Earth is either practical or wise.

I'd be delighted to see the U.S. military budget cut in half.
I'd be delighted to see our troops withdrawn from Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc.

"... today there are over 320,000 [U.S.] Army troops alone, deployed in 120 countries overseas. That's more than 60% of the entire [U.S.] Army." NBC-TV Nightly News March 9, '04.

That's just way way too much. Bring all that we can as quickly as we can without causing a power vacuum.
Transition smoothly, but expeditiously.

"How can you justify the existence of any armaments at all given what you quoted below?:" Laird

Laird,
It's wisdom known even to the ancients.

parabellum can cepic .... : to insure peace, prepare for war

I agree with Ike. But that's not a rational argument for terminating military spending.
Instead, it's a sensible argument for keeping it within reasonable limits.

"An armed society is a polite society."
I don't think either citizens, or governments should be disarmed.

[Shahrazad]

Good posts from Laird and Ryan.

The first step is the globalisation of all armies. The final step is the conversion of the global army from an armed force into a disaster-response organisation.

Perhaps the Red Cross can be used as a model. They are incredibly well-organized, goal-oriented and have a good reputation.

-

[Laird]

Shall we ban hunting?

Yes. Would you like to be hunted?

Is there any more revolting spectacle than a man intent on the needless destruction of animal life? We are here to nurture and protect, not to kill and destroy.

No offence intended but I have strong views on this.

I don't think eliminating military on Earth is either practical or wise.

We have different understandings of wisdom then. As for practical: well, granted, it's not an easy task, but idealism is a virtue.

"An armed society is a polite society."

An armed society is one in which there are regular high school massacres, in which people in big cities live in fear of walking the streets late at night.

I don't think either citizens, or governments should be disarmed.

Let me put it to you this way: here in Australia very few people own guns. We are largely a disarmed society, particularly since the Port Arthur massacre after which the government recalled all semi-automatic hand guns. Very few (if any) people protested that move [edit: hmm, it seems that my memory has failed me and that there were after all significant protests in particular by the Tasmanian government]. We have a comparatively low murder rate. Our police force (global army) is of course armed.

Why should this situation not be extended to the level of countries?

Good posts from Laird and Ryan.

Thanks Sher.

Perhaps the Red Cross can be used as a model. They are incredibly well-organized, goal-oriented and have a good reputation.

Yes, that sounds like the sort of thing that a global army could turn into.

[Carl G]

It's my contention that whilst there are understandable reasons why war has occurred and currently occurs, there is no reasonable justification for war to continue to occur, and it's my further contention that the world would unequivocally be a better place to live in with a complete absence of war. I don't want the discussion in this thread to focus upon challenges to these two contentions

What then do you propose the discussion in the thread should focus upon? Do you ever say?

Most of your fat post seems to be given over to fanciful meanderings constituting an imagined scenario for global disarmament without any real examination of the actual forces involved in the world's power structures and conflict dynamics.

[Laird]

What then do you propose the discussion in the thread should focus upon?

1. The viability of the proposed solution, with reasoning to explain why it would not work if that's your contention.
2. Additional details to flesh out the solution
3. Alternative solutions

Most of your fat post seems to be given over to fanciful meanderings constituting an imagined scenario for global disarmament without any real examination of the actual forces involved in the world's power structures and conflict dynamics.

If you think that such an analysis would be relevant then by all means attempt one. I'm trying to come up with a practical solution. If you think that it's "fanciful" then go ahead and explain why with reference to the world's power structures and conflict dynamics.

[Carl G]

You keep using the word "solution" as if you think there is a problem. Why do you see war as a problem? War is an accepted way of life here on Earth. Same way that disease, insanity, and corrupt elections are a way of life.

So your verbose test tube hypothesis is simply large scale wankery, is it not? You have that much time on your hands?

[Shahrazad]

Regarding power structures: the US citizens have to mature collectively and stop electing Presidents like the Bushes and McCain. Instead, they could elect Presidents like Ron Paul. Until that happens, war will always exist.

[Tomas]

-Laird-
Tomas: Where's your optimistic idealism gone?

-tomas-
If you haven't spent (at the very least) a year in the United States, you would not understand the dynamic of 'taking on the man'.


-Laird-
Come and join us!

-tomas-
Sell everything and give it to the poor?

And follow what?



Tomas

7

.

[Laird]

Why do you see war as a problem?

If you don't see it that way, then there's probably little that I can do to explain. More to the point, I don't care to try to explain, as I implied in my opening paragraph. I take it as a given. Perhaps you should sign up for Iraq and then come back (if you even make it back alive) and tell me your opinion of war.

So your verbose test tube hypothesis is simply large scale wankery, is it not?

No more than any other wankery that goes on in this forum, and probably a lot less.

You have that much time on your hands?

Oh, that's rich. This is an internet forum where people come to discuss things. We've all (yeah mate, that includes YOU - hypocrite) got time on our hands or we wouldn't be free to participate. My contribution is at least as meaningful as anything that you've contributed of late.

[Laird]

If you haven't spent (at the very least) a year in the United States, you would not understand the dynamic of 'taking on the man'.

I haven't spent more than a few weeks in the US, so please explain it to me.

Sell everything and give it to the poor?

I suppose that that's one option, but if you give away all of your financial power, then it's harder to continue to help people.

And follow what?

How about your good sense and decency of spirit?

[Carl G]

Why do you see war as a problem?

If you don't see it that way, then there's probably little that I can do to explain. More to the point, I don't care to try to explain, as I implied in my opening paragraph. I take it as a given. Perhaps you should sign up for Iraq and then come back (if you even make it back alive) and tell me your opinion of war.

I think your premise is fucked, and now you are using what's left of your credibility as a thinker to dig yourself a grave.

So your verbose test tube hypothesis is simply large scale wankery, is it not?

No more than any other wankery that goes on in this forum,

Heh, yah, this forum attracts wankers, but I don't consider that an excuse for more.

and probably a lot less.

A lot more, I'd say, since yours comes in the guise of well thought out material.

You're such a shallow thinker, you verbosely spill your mind, thinking aloud as you go along while imparting airs of import and reeeeeason -- "I take it as a given" -- as if you think you are really saying something. That is why I call you a girly man.

You have that much time on your hands?

Oh, that's rich. This is an internet forum where people come to discuss things. We've all (yeah mate, that includes YOU - hypocrite) got time on our hands or we wouldn't be free to participate. My contribution is at least as meaningful as anything that you've contributed of late.

A real girly man response to prove my point. And to show you don't get mine.

Sure, get out the big brush and paint it over. Then continue with your self-important claptrap. Write a biblical tome of your thoughts, the fucking Book of Laird. God knows you already have. Has it gotten you anywhere?

[Laird]

Carl, I'm not here to bicker. If you have something substantial and on-topic to contribute then please go about it. I'm all ears to your critique.

[Sapius]

You keep using the word "solution" as if you think there is a problem. Why do you see war as a problem? War is an accepted way of life here on Earth. Same way that disease, insanity, and corrupt elections are a way of life.

So your verbose test tube hypothesis is simply large scale wankery, is it not? You have that much time on your hands?

Carl, no offence, but if we all think pessimistically the way you do, then God save humanity. We have to work it all out for ourselves mate, and we generally do, otherwise we wouldn’t have the UN or NATO.

[sear]

"Yes. Would you like to be hunted?" Laird

I'm at the top of my food chain.

But if I was a deer, and my choice was to be run down in the snow by a pack of coydogs, mauled over, and then eaten alive as I looked on; or simply be stepping silently through the forest one day (during hunting season) and before I heard the click of the trigger; lights out?
Definitely yes, I'd rather be hunted by gun than by predators that kill by eating their quarry alive.

"Is there any more revolting spectacle than a man intent on the needless destruction of animal life?" Laird

a) Yes.
b) "Needless destruction of animal life?"
If I had my choice of being a farm animal raised for slaughter, or being a wild animal harvested for food, I'd probably prefer the latter.

"Needless destruction"?
That may apply to trophy hunting.
I'm not a trophy hunter. I seldom hunt. But when I do, I intend to eat what I kill. The only time I didn't was when I gut-shot a Gray Squirrel with a .22 Mag. Normally I tap them in the head; not easy (try it and see). I don't use a scatter gun. I use .22 rimfire. If you're good enough to shoot one of them in the head, you probably deserve the meal.

I don't condemn others if they wish to be vegetarian.
I don't.
So ethically, what's the difference between eating animals farmed as food, and culling a wild population?

"We are here to nurture and protect, not to kill and destroy." Laird

Har dee har har.
Says who?
god?
The Bible says we have dominion over the animals.

"No offence intended but I have strong views on this." Laird

No offense taken.
I find your position against hunting intense, but weak.
The fact is, in New York State, the deer population depends upon predation or some other means of population control.
The wolves are gone here.
The result is, if hunters don't cull the deer, the automobiles will.

"... idealism is a virtue." Laird

Adolf Hitler is credited with killing "6 million Jews". He killed millions of others too.
But Joseph Stalin killed more than Hitler did; to maintain his ruthless totalitarian rule.
But Chairman Mao killed more than Stalin did. But Mao killed with is agricultural reforms. He starved his own People to death by the tens of millions.
Chairman Mao was an idealist.
Think about it.

"An armed society is one in which there are regular high school massacres, in which people in big cities live in fear of walking the streets late at night." Laird

Guns can blast large wound channels in human torsos and calibrated ordnance gelatin. There are other ways to do that, but guns can do it too.
Guns can kill some living things. There are other ways to do that, but guns can do it too.
Guns can empower the weak against the strong.
That's essentially unprecedented.

The NRA's position is, if the fearful ones were packin' heat, they might have less to worry about.

"Why should this situation not be extended to the level of countries?" Laird

Democracy.
For those that want it that way, I have no objection.
For those that don't, I believe disarming them against their will is a step that should be considered carefully before acting upon it.