Indeed, this is the best answer given here.

The profit of peace goes to the many. The profit of war goes to the few.

Guess who rules?

Actually, I disagree. Peace fosters a LOT of economic growth. Look at Japan. Japan grew very, very quickly because they didn't have to spend a dime on military might. True, war profits a few, and these profits are nothing to sneeze at. But they benefit a select few (Halliburton, Lockheed) they do well. But what else?

The plurality of mankind is a source of conflict but also a source of productivity and wealth (think about the division of labour).
It`s very difficult to get an social order which can include a great number of beliefs, values and ideologies, but it`s absolutely impossibly tho achieve an order which can integrate all forms.
This is why also a peaceloving community must sometimes fight against its enemies, if it wants survive.

There is no reason to believe that an enemy is somehow less human than you are. Actually, we even have trouble believing our allies are as human as we are. It appears to me that the common person in America has this view: either you're superhuman (their role models and leaders) or you're beneath them (everyone else). There is no one that is your peer.

Why can we not just understand that while some are better at doing things than others, we as people, are all living beings?

__________________
Sever the line to the guilty past
To the ones who brought us nothing
Spoke of futures brave and proud
And brought only hate and war.
Lined the roads with hollow praise
Marked the land with paper statues
Shadows fell on their futile ways
And then there was nothing more

I think this is a gross oversimplification of how "most americans" feel. Some of us, who actually understand a little bit about human nature, understand that our enemies are human, and that, for this precise reason, peace can never be.

Perhaps you should give your fellow humans a little more credit. Yes, many cannot think past the level of tribalism, but you will find that this is not a "common american" trait so much as a "common human" trait.

You cannot acheive peace simply by understanding that your enemy is human. But you can get closer to it when you realize that in the eyes of the enemy, the enemy himself is not a villain. With a few rare exceptions, noibody really thinks of themselves as villains. In most cases, people simply do what they feel needs to be done, whether they have the courage to do it or not.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Greetings,

I think we are reaching for peace. It just takes a long time since changing human nature is never an instantaneous event. Despite the images presented by the mass media and the rationale used by some in power most people don't want war. If I have any hope of a positive result from 9-11 and the war in Iraq it is that people will have a last chance to see the futility of war and decide to change their ways.
There was a critical moment after September 11 when we were on the verge of a great breakthrough. The world was appalled at the attacks and was unified in their opinions. Unfortunately, there were forces extant in those moments that still clung to the old ways. Those of us willing to look understand that it had nothing to do with George Bush and had everything to do with the mindset of the militant.
There is a constant deluge of news about the horrible realities of Iraq. What people seem to miss is the absence of real conflict anywhere else. What are the hotspots of the world: Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur. There is a great deal of posturing in other areas such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Great Britain and the United States. However, there is no actual conflict and slow progress is being made to ensure that none occurs.

I have a lot of hope for humanity in these moments. Sometimes for something to change something bad has to happen to make us realize that change needs to be made.

In Gloria,
C. David Neely

__________________

The reason I say 'common american' is because I am better prepared to speak for my countrymen than I am of any other.

Have we truly progressed at all? Back in ancient China, generals agreed to determine the battle's outcome on a game of strategy, much like chess. Name for me one recent battle that has been that civilized.

Are you human? If you can make sweeping generalizations about americans, can you not make them about humans. One thing I have learned in my near forty years on this planet, is that very rare humans indeed think beyond the tribal. In America, it manifests itself in many ways (what church you belong to, what city you live in, even what sports teams you root for), and in other countries, it manifests in other (although sometimes identical) ways.

As for the chinese, in many ways the earlier dynasties were more civilized than our own. But where are they now?

In thousands of years, will people look back on present-day America (or Germany or South Africa or Tibet) and say, "Wow, they were really civilized?" Maybe, as we do not know what the future holds. But saying that "common americans" think along tribal lines is not taking into account that this makes them no different from most other humans on the planet.

I am pointing out that it is human nature to be tribal, and there is a lot of evolution that has to take place to breed it out of us. And in order for evolution to take place, something that benefits the species better must come along and replace tribalism.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

War is fun and profitable, as long as you are on the winning side, and don't actually need to get your hands dirty. Kinda like a good football game, just on a much grander scale.

Why would people get involved in war if they did not think it will advance thier cause, whatever it may be?

People love war, the bad thing is the consequences are getting a bit scary - look how many nations now have nukes. IMO, it is inevitable nukes are used at some point in the next 100 years. Sort of explains the "why give a damn" attitude that seems so common. I put the odds you grandkids will be able to post messages on a forum such as this (or whtever the net would evolve into) at less than 50%.

I was hoping someone would notice that was a lot of sarcasm. Maybe I should have used one of the smilies. (I truly hate them...)

True enough, I've made the same relization. The larger someone thinks, then (generally) the more laid back they are. They realize that it really doesn't matter whether they're the big man on the block, or that 'being dissed' really doesn't affect anything over in, say, China. (At least not directly). Tribalism may well be hardwired into us. It's all around you, when you open your eyes. Why can't we overcome it?

Hm...are you possibly suggesting that the old dynasties (the aforementioned Chinese) were wiped out because they were more civilized and didn't kill one another, and that we may be on a path to self-destruction...evolving towards it, even?

I doubt we'll see nukes used within a hundred years. Mutually assured destruction, while not formally extended towards countries other than Russia, is still a reality. Who wants to destroy not only the enemy, but all that they know and love? No one. The only people that can possibly do that are non-governmental types, people that span multiple countries, making it impossible to actually nuke them.

I certainly hope you are right, but I have two worries:

The probability the non-governmental typpe will aquire a nuke seems real to me. The former USSRhad tons of nuclear material, I am not convinced every gram has ever been accounted for.

The push for a missle defense is troubling. An effective missle shield would theoretically couteract MAD. I believe there are those who would then consider pre-emptive strikes a viable option.

Once again, I hope you are right, but have my doubts.

yes, there are such a people. But a missile shield is actually somewhat tricky. Imagine stopping a rock thrown at you with another rock. That's basically what it is. It's more important to claim you have one than to actually posses one. The non-governmental type would never gain an ICBM. They're too big and they're more or less kept under better wraps than anything else.

I think that the realisation that we are global citizens - and all humans - would be a progressive step, but it may not eliminate conflict and war.

The United States, Australia and Europe are today microcosms of people from different races, ethnicity, creeds, etc, living in relative harmony.

Economic interest is the primary force driving wars, though nationalism, religion and other such passions act as facilitators.

In the end, though, academic analysis notwithstanding, the power to end war is in our hands.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman