 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
How is it . . .
October 21, 2003 - 09:26 AM
|
|
Long time since I wrote anything in here. Here's hoping my youthful idealism isn't lost in my written language.
So much suffering in the world right now. Israel and Palestine. Iraq and America. The West, and the East.
How is it, do you think, that war has become a way of life for so many people? Is there really a sinister conspiracy within a number of countries in 'The West' to perpetuate the demands of self-interest by the annhiliation of apparently lesser-peoples? How is it that Imperialism still lives, even where knowledge and information violated borders through phone lines at the speed of light.
Or, is where we find ourselves as a planet at present a product of 'the good guys' aggressively forcing 'freedom' upon another? Is this question best judged by whether a people are better or worse off at present than they were under the old leadership? Is it something we all must simply adapt to, trusting that though the cost may be high, freedom, of one kind or another, shall prevail?
Or should we really be scrutinising the motivations of the U.S and it's supporters? Should we be questioning the virtue of our leaders claims that we are right and they are wrong? Can we legitimately criticise ourselves and still criticise the elements of despotism that exist throughout the world?
What tangible solutions are there to the predicament we find ourselves in?
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
jen b
Joined: Apr 15, 2002
Posts: 61 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Brampton
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 21, 2003 - 10:03 AM
|
|
tangilble solutions... almost oxymoronic don't you think? Never any simple answers.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 22, 2003 - 03:52 AM
|
|
Disagree.
Science has done rather well in defining complex problems into simple solutions, and if we are all ultimately governed by the laws of science, that is, our minds are forged from the genetic rules that predispose us to our behaviour, why can't we develop a simple means of solving the most straightforward of problems?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 23, 2003 - 02:20 AM
|
|
Well well...
There are simple solutions to everything. Its just that everybody should obey it, leaving aside their personal intrests and egos.
The way I understand, pred wants to say, how should we find a solution to problems for which we usually go to war.
One suggesion I would make would be, to abolish countries from having any independent armies. There should be a central global authority (more powerful than UN)which should have a peacekeeping force insted. Any problems whatsoever, should be fought in their court of justice represented by people from all countries.
One solution, though it is not perfect. Because then we would see alliances between nation which would support each other on unreasonable things (like all muslim countries comming together and fighting their stupid jihad).
But it will be a good solution coz we wont have to spend so much on research and deeveplopment of defence or upgrading our armies to be better than other's.
UN is a big failure for this one reason. It doesnt have any power at all over the rich and powerful countries. That is because UN doesnt have an army of its own.
Should think about it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 23, 2003 - 03:55 AM
|
|
Firstly, I don't think the UN is an outright failure. It has failed humanity in the past, there is no question of that. Rwanda was probably the most preventable and most devastating period of genocide since the days of Stalin, but ultimately the UN is made up of members states, the idea being the UN itself has no agenda but that it provides a place for nation-states to work together for the betterment of mankind. If there's a problem, it has to be solved by those who are at the table.
Perhaps one way it could become better is if all nations practiced the idea of collective-interest, instead of self-interest. That idea is like a double-edged sword however, since when those who come to the table are not representative of their people's sentiments, and economic rationalisation is believed by the economically powerful to be the flagship economic manifesto for the next century; self-interest can prevail whether it is purposeful or not.
World Armies wouldn't solve the problem of wars. Merely, it would perpetuate the conflict into one that spans borders.
Though if the borders weren't there, what would the world be like?
Oh, and if you look carefully, you'll find there aren't any Countries in existence today who have actually declared Jihad as a political policy, rather, the few extremist Islamic Republics embrace the influence of Fundamentalist Clerics, thus skewing the centre of cultural gravity in their domestic affairs.
Al Qaeda isn't a country. It is a movement of people that transcends borders.
Am I led to believe that a likewise movement of peaceful resistence to fundamentalism from all sides cannot exist?
What does everyone else think about that?
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 23, 2003 - 08:02 AM
|
|
The UN is best at research and refugee aid rather than forcing sovereign nations to stop violence. Just because the UN cannot force world peace upon us, does not mean it it is useless.
The comment on non-violence reminded me of an Eisenhower speech where he said something to the effect that one day the peoples of the world will want peace so badly that governments will have to get out of the way and give it to them.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Roentgen
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Posts: 70 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender: Male
Country: Philippines
Province/State: Manila
|
Re: How is it . . .
October 24, 2003 - 06:55 AM
|
|
Mike got it - the UN is not an outright failure. It has failed in some areas, in particular, the prevention of wars, but it it can still be considered a legitimate body. It still provides a good forum where issues can be discussed. It needs reforms though. In particular, I don't think the UN Security Council is truly representative and having five permanent members with veto powers concentrate powers in only a few hands. And there were many instances when just one veto prevented the Council from passing resolutions which were almost endorsed by many, if not almost all.
And Mike, I am not really into the -'blame-the-West-for-everything-type' since the level of corruption is so high in many developing countries, but there are also a number of significant issues which the West should really think about. For example, the collapse of the Cancun talks have mirrored the growing frustation of developing economies on unfair trade policies by developed countries. This so unfair policy for me ( the 'open your markets but our agriculture subsidies will still be massive so that your products still cannot competitively compete with ours' type) is so disappointing and smacks of brazen double-standard. The frustration over this unsuccessful negotiations have led many to think about the value of multilateralism, something which ideally characterizes the UN. And when you also have countries pursuing thrusts on its own, that also puts into doubt the credibility of the UN.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
