Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Let us consider contemporary examples:
1. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Tibet: 'countries' wanting to gain independence.
2. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Tibet: 'countries' occupied by foreign armies.
3. .....do I need to go on?
The common thread between all these current - and past - examples is that they depend on a vast confidence trick: the idea of nations or countries, artificial lines drawn on a map, and greed for resources.
Humans are animals and animals NATURALLY have TERRITORY. Humans view it as their "territory" and so they don't like it when some other group goes nabbin' it, we all deserve a bit of territory; it's obviously in our nature.
Simon 'n' Fede, I honestly think some wars are justifiable... say a war fighting for equal rights, freedom from slavery, women's rights... do you agree?
The common thread between all these current - and past - examples is that they depend on a vast confidence trick: the idea of nations or countries, artificial lines drawn on a map, and greed for resources.
Yes, there is no China, no USA, no Germany, no Russia, no Australia, it's usually people with weapons making people who bear no arms suffer. The aggressors act under the guise of nationality, the ones with power and resources that tend to represent everyone that falls under the umbrella of a nation and of a national interest, all part and parcel of a military industrial complex.
This quotation comes from a source which is not usually deemed pacifist:
[P]eople are living in the grip of constant fear. They are afraid that at any moment the impending storm may break upon them with horrific violence. And they have good reasons for their fear, for there is certainly no lack of such weapons. While it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare to assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstance. Moreover, even though the monstrous power of modern weapons does indeed act as a deterrent, there is reason to fear that the very testing of nuclear devices for war purposes can, if continued, lead to serious danger for various forms of life on earth.
Need for Disarmament
112. Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control.
I'm afraid it would only be possible if all the nuclear weapons all over the world vanished. Alternatively, the list of ingrediants could be burned and they should be put out of make.
Oh so you are just talking about America and USSR at war with each other, well in my opinion I think that these two goverments found it much easier to fight each other indirectly by training and supplying armies to control countries of high strategic interest to them. Its much easier to do then a direct war with each other and also their own population do not need to know about it. So I highly doubt that these countries would have fought each other directly in a war even without nuclear weapons, but I guess we will never know the answer to that as history has already been written.
Metta to all sentient beings
Really I'm just pointing out the irony of a weapon with such great destructive capabilities being keeping two greatly powerful and openly hostile nations at bay for decades.
Really I'm just pointing out the irony of a weapon with such great destructive capabilities being keeping two greatly powerful and openly hostile nations at bay for decades.
I know , but all I am saying is that it I dont think it was just nuclear weapons which stopped them having all out war with each other.
I'm afraid it would only be possible if all the nuclear weapons all over the world vanished. Alternatively, the list of ingrediants could be burned and they should be put out of make.
every country should take collective decision to destroy all Nuclear weapon. Without them the world would be a much better place. But I just don't see that happening as each country is researching and making more and more powerful weapon to "Protect themselves"
every country should take collective decision to destroy all Nuclear weapon. Without them the world would be a much better place. But I just don't see that happening as each country is researching and making more and more powerful weapon to "Protect themselves"
That's the problem; it's a sticky situation. Nobody trusts each other
Comments
yes. I agree.
Yes, there is no China, no USA, no Germany, no Russia, no Australia, it's usually people with weapons making people who bear no arms suffer. The aggressors act under the guise of nationality, the ones with power and resources that tend to represent everyone that falls under the umbrella of a nation and of a national interest, all part and parcel of a military industrial complex.
Really I'm just pointing out the irony of a weapon with such great destructive capabilities being keeping two greatly powerful and openly hostile nations at bay for decades.
Metta to all sentient beings.
every country should take collective decision to destroy all Nuclear weapon. Without them the world would be a much better place. But I just don't see that happening as each country is researching and making more and more powerful weapon to "Protect themselves"
and that is not going to help anyone.