Features

KevinTheOmnivore · #1

So I have been thinking about this one, and I was wondering what you folks thought.

I feel like many of the differences that develop over war, aggression, and violence stem from a different definition of the concept of peace. Is peace merely the absence of violence, or is it a conscious agreement/understanding between two or more parties?

For example, the American Left (not everyone, but many) often throw the word around a lot in reference to just about anything. The further Left, such as the Green Party, often refers to themselves as the "peace party," and their candidates have a "peace platform." So they support peace, which means they oppose any kind of military action just about ever.

But is that peace? I realize opposing a particular war doesn't make you a pacifist or even non-violent. Most Liberals and/or Dems I meet oppose the war in Iraq, but supported the war in Afghanistan.

Are people content to know that violent acts simply aren't happening, or does violence lead to peace? For example, is a nuclear Iran better than dead Iranians and dead American soldiers (let's say if all talks melted down)?

Sethomas · #2

Hey, I actually like the idea of this thread!

"Peace" is always going to be a subjective and relative term. However, I think that a rational fear of violence in itself is a contradiction of worthwhile peace, and national autonomy is most always a prerequisite for real peace. Like, the Pax Romana was famous for having no wars, but I wouldn't consider it a genuine across-the-board "peace" because there were skirmishes virtually everywhere that were simply incapable of escalating into war because of the constant thumbscrews in place.

Obviously, peace should be the perpetual telos of all politics, but that doesn't override the option for operating a just war to accomplish a greater peace.

Just an aside, if the fear of Iran getting nukes is such a valid concern on the grounds that they could fall into even worse hands, what is being done for the much more palpable reality of the Soviet stockpile that everyone's totally forgotten about? I'm not saying that Russia would sell them to terrorists, but last I heard their security measures were non-existent.

Grislygus · #3

I believe that nonviolence and agreement between nations would be a prerequisite for peace, rather than being peace itself (which I believe to be a state of utter comfort and security).

I'm sorry if that sounds obvious and retarded, I can't exactly articulate what I'm thinking in more complex terms.

Archduke Tips · #4

Nuclear bombs bring peace. You can only kill everyone once.

Juttin · #5

Peace? Fuck peace! Peace is for communists! And Hippies!
And, also, TERRORISTS! Sure, you'll feel safe,
but when you let your guard down,
the Soviets and Vietcong will take over!
Then, the brown people will TAKE OUR FREEDOM

REPUBLICAN SMASH!

kahljorn · #6

Well, war stems from conflicts of interest of some kind, so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same. Insert communist manifesto.

Preechr · #7

Sweet thread.

If war is the use of violence to accomplish political objectives, then maybe peace is... instead of the absence of war or violence... simply the use of non-violence to accomplish political objectives. Peace is fair representative politics.

We shouldn't try to define peace as the absence of something. That's like saying life is the absence of being murdered.

Notice how I just turned that around so the War on Terror is even MORE justified? When I'm allowed to define the terms, peaceful nations cannot deal peacefully with violent states or people.

Juttin · #8

Bah...the WoT will NEVER be justified.
I'm totally close-minded at the thought anymore

Abcdxxxx · #9

If peace is a state of being, or understanding, then it's an ideal, goal, and sometimes outcome. The methodology one takes to achieve an existance of peace is almost secondary. There are a lot of activities in life which seem counterproductive if taken out of context (ie. cutting a body open to do surgery, or say, making a mess so that you can reorganize and clean a house).

There has to be an agreement on what peace means, firstly...is it a state of submission, or is it a state of harmony and tolerance?

Preechr · #10

You are trying to make this a value judgement. You can define a carrot without determining whether it is a good or bad thing. Define it, then we can determine it's value.

Preechr · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juttin

Bah...the WoT will NEVER be justified.
I'm totally close-minded at the thought anymore

Stay on topic.

You try defining peace.

That's what Kevin asked for in his thread, and he might just ban you if you don't do it.

It's what he does.

Preechr · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Well, war stems from conflicts of interest of some kind, so I suppose peace would occur when all people's interest are the same. Insert communist manifesto.

Ok, so how about if everybody chooses war. Is war then peace?

Try again.

Preechr · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grislygus

...peace itself (which I believe to be a state of utter comfort and security).

So, your definition of peace is something along the lines of what Kevin said was: "a nuclear Iran (is) better than dead Iranians and dead American soldiers."

Oh, but you said, "utter."

That means you believe peace is unobtainable.

See how that works?

Preechr · #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussoNWM

Nuclear bombs bring peace. You can only kill everyone once.

But what is peace?

Are you saying peace is the absence of humans?

Juttin · #15

The only wars in which the American Public have benefit are the American Revolution and World Wars (I and II).
I'd rather "Submit" than watch more False Patriots die in an unnecessary war. And for what? FREEEDOM? Safety of our country?
I don't think so. Homeland Security is just a ploy to blind the public from their greedy asshole leader and his "Trusty Cabinet" consisting of Haliburton investors and Enron Refuge

Preechr · #16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preechr

But what is peace?

Juttin · #17

Peace is an unachievable thing.
It's just an idea with no working backbone.
Human society was built around conflict, and it'll end by the hands of some conflict gone awry.

KevinTheOmnivore · #18

That's absolutely absurd. Do wars end? Do nations that engage in bloody wars often become allies?

Juttin · #19

Sure. A single war ends. But out of that war comes two more wars.
Then out of those comes more wars.
Times change, friendships are lost, conflict ensues.
There's no such thing as peace.

kahljorn · #20

if you look at what the etymology of peace it actually means lack of war or stability under one dominant nation. So peace then always occurs after wars

"Ok, so how about if everybody chooses war. Is war then peace?"

if everybody wanted war and waged it willingly and were happy with it i dont see what the problem would be I'm sure people would be "At peace" with their war, kind of like how you can "find peace" at your death bed..
Everybody in the world wanting war and wanting to die is an absurd thing to say, because it would never happen. Nobody ever wants war i don't think, nobody has ever started a war thinking, "I want war" they think, "I want objects/land/property/wealth/power", sometimes people even want "Peace" from war, from another place. Hence, war occurs from conflicts of interest, usually conflicts of self-interest.

Preechr · #21

Everybody starts war thinking, "I want war."

You have to understand this before you can go on.

Preechr · #22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juttin

There's no such thing as peace.

So, then, peace is your version of chaos... or peace is a unicorn?

Preechr · #23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juttin

It's just an idea with no working backbone.

Then what is war?

You seem to be saying war is existence, at least for humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juttin

...and it'll end by the hands of some conflict gone awry.

So, then... I'd venture to extrapolate we were, in at least your estimation, born of war.

We live it, and we will die from it.

How else could we have become?