Re: A world without war
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:43 pm
Dave H;
No, it is the ultimate goal. There are hundreds of things that need sorting out before that actually happens, and all of it is necessarily connected; starting with education in many humanitarian related issues, including basic morals and ethics that affect us all as a whole.
And the aim is to try and make that zero by the 30th century.
Local (country) government would act only as the arm of a greater ORGANIZATION rather than a “GOVERNMENTâ€, which takes care of local issues only. As soon as aomething becomes a humanitarian issue, the WC will step in and can help remove a corrupt local government before a point critical is reached.
I did not read the links you provide, (may be later I will), but I’m sure they would justify what you are saying.
Sear, I will get back to your post soon; in the mean while please reflect on the above. I’m not good at explaining things in details, so I hope you don't assume that I’m trying to ignore an issue by addressing it succinctly. English is not my first language although I mainly communicate through it internationally.
Is "ending war" the real issue?
No, it is the ultimate goal. There are hundreds of things that need sorting out before that actually happens, and all of it is necessarily connected; starting with education in many humanitarian related issues, including basic morals and ethics that affect us all as a whole.
During the 20th Century, somewhere around 42 million people were killed in wars. That's a lot of deaths.
And the aim is to try and make that zero by the 30th century.
EXACTLY! So what is the solution to that then? When LOCAL governments have no jurisdictions over HUMATERIAN issues that are deemed unethical by the WC, of which that particular country is also a part of, then the LOCAL government cannot act unethically, otherwise the majority of the world will be against and fall upon them! And they can without any bloodshed, because the local government (country) has no MILITARY of its own. Only the WC as a whole can decide if a LOCAL government is acting against HUMATARIAN values, or for it, and ACT accordingly.But during the 20th Century, somewhere around 170 million people were killed by their own governments, outside of wars.
Local (country) government would act only as the arm of a greater ORGANIZATION rather than a “GOVERNMENTâ€, which takes care of local issues only. As soon as aomething becomes a humanitarian issue, the WC will step in and can help remove a corrupt local government before a point critical is reached.
It is not throwing in more government, but actually removing the power that could result in 170 million deaths. Now how bad is trying to think in those terms?Is war a problem that can be solved by throwing more government at it?
I did not read the links you provide, (may be later I will), but I’m sure they would justify what you are saying.
Sear, I will get back to your post soon; in the mean while please reflect on the above. I’m not good at explaining things in details, so I hope you don't assume that I’m trying to ignore an issue by addressing it succinctly. English is not my first language although I mainly communicate through it internationally.