Jimmy Carter - give peace a chance

[Technosoul]

Should Jimmy Carter be talking to so called terrorist groups? Who were once the elected government of the West Bank but driven out under pressure from Israel?

Is there any chance that people will ever give peace a chance?

Carter, Hamas discussed Gaza truce at Egypt meeting - Middle East Times

[Anmon]

No, there is no such thing as peace, its just a break between wars.

[another day]

And attitudes like that are precisely the reason for that... People think war is necessary when it's not. The message that "peaceniks" have been trying to push is one that changes peoples minds on that issue. It's a little idealistic but it's possible in the long run.

[Anmon]

Idealism is the dreamers version of reality.
All the peaceniks can go over to Africa or the mid east and try and change peoples minds there. God knows were tired of hearing their compromising views.
Peace comes when you die, life is a never ending struggle between good against evil, and how we react to it, its like an exam your sitting for.
Theres either war or a constant state of vigilance so war doesn't have the chance to happen.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon Idealism is the dreamers version of reality. All the peaceniks can go over to Africa or the mid east and try and change peoples minds there.

Or we can stay where we are and cultivate peace. If you think anti-war movements involve nothing but unshakable, starry-eyed idealists, you are sadly mistaken. The reality if war is very much involved.

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

They are not cultivating peace at all, they are only cultivating dissension and disorder, for their own self centred interests
Have they honestly really changed anyones interest in going to war?
There are now more wars and conflicts than ever.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon They are not cultivating peace at all, they are only cultivating dissension and disorder, for their own self centred interests Have they honestly really changed anyones interest in going to war?

You're really going to attribute war to the antiwar movement, and not to the rise of nationalism? Also absurd is the claim that opposing war is self-centered. How did you deduce that logically?

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

Quote by: grandpa You're really going to attribute war to the antiwar movement, and not to the rise of nationalism?

No I didn't say that, I said all the peace protests are doing is causing tension and disharmony in the west, its not solving anything, or bringing peace anywhere.
I did not say peace protests are a cause of war.

Also absurd is the claim that opposing war is self-centered. How did you deduce that logically?

I believe their reasons for protesting are basically more based on a personal little ego trip, than any real concerns.
I didn't say opposing war itself is self centred, just the reasons they are really doing it for.
It basically has to be controversial to attract their enthusiasm and politically correct also,
For instance if they really cared that much about human rights, then wheres the protests against Mugabe or when Rwanda was happening.
Or how South Africa has now turned into a new racist country, but against whites.
Tibet was like yawn until china got involved with the Olympics, then it became interesting enough for them.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon No I didn't say that, I said all the peace protests are doing is causing tension and disharmony in the west, its not solving anything, or bringing peace anywhere. I did not say peace protests are a cause of war.

But you're arguing they are conducive to war, that they're "causing tension and disharmony in the west." That's not true. They are responding to "disharmony" in the global system, typically in the way peace-loving people would. If that's not of value to fostering peace, I don't know what is.

I believe their reasons for protesting are basically more based on a personal little ego trip, than any real concerns. I didn't say opposing war itself is self centred, just the reasons they are really doing it for. It basically has to be controversial to attract their enthusiasm and politically correct also, For instance if they really cared that much about human rights, then wheres the protests against Mugabe or when Rwanda was happening. Or how South Africa has now turned into a new racist country, but against whites. Tibet was like yawn until china got involved with the Olympics, then it became interesting enough for them.

That's the thing, isn't it? If you're hevaily involved in one struggle then you're a single-issue isolationist. However, if you speak on a manner of issues then you're just some trendy dupe.

Grandpa h.

[shrike]

The "peace" movements in western democracies perceived as sign of weakness in the totalitarian states. They know it's hard for liberal democracies to enter to war to defend their interests so they can do whatever they want.

[Charlatan]

Only so much can be accomplished by protesting a war, and the withdrawel of troops is that only thing. You can end a war between two parties by making them meet and then talk about it, but you can't make them ever stop hating each other or get what they want. Wars happen by people wanting something and then are not able to get it, so they go to war to get it. People protest their being a war, then say that they should go in there and end it, and then say they must withdraw so it can work itself out without the intervening party being there. That is the problem, people want war then they say it goes on too long, as it is the same people that march each time, as it is not everybody that demonstrates, and only a few take the time to march for any given reason. So war goes through a popular stage at first, then an unpopular stage after that. Why? Because people want the world to be at peace, so when there is a need for intervention they want it, because they think that their influence there will make a difference, then they see they are not making a difference, the way they see things, and so as they haven't made a difference they want their soldiers back home. Either way they want the war to end.

People want peace because they are on a holy stint, they think that all fighting can be overcome, and because they are into fostering an image of themselves of someone that cares. What would people sacrifice to see the war end? Would they pay half their salary for a year to see it over? When faced with sacrifice like that they would probably take the same approach as those that ignore and joke about wars. So it is logical to say that nobody really cares about war except the people that are hurt by it. People get into a frenzy when they gather like that, all wanting to be the voice of the crowd, as they all want to be seen as somebody who cares, and cares more than other people do. That is the problem, they all want to be seen as people that care more than others becuase it gives them more slef worth, and self worth is addictive, where you get used to seeing yourslef as someone that is worth more in the eyes of societym in the way that allows people to think that the person who marches has a lot of zest.

So people march because of this addiction to self worth and societies view of them, and nothing more. Of course people do think that war is wrong, as war is terrible and makes for terrible media coverage, making people think that it is not a good idea, or a terrible thing completely.

[Trotsky]

Has Jimmy Carter not done enough damage in his "career". Should he not just bugger off and keep schtum.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa You're really going to attribute war to the antiwar movement, and not to the rise of nationalism? Also absurd is the claim that opposing war is self-centered. How did you deduce that logically? Grandpa h.

By nationalism do you mean the movement sparked by Napoleon in the early 19th century or nation building itself? Because war has bviously been around far before the former and, if you count tribal massacres and disputes as war, which in my mind they are, the latter. Though at least the peace protesters try, however deeply ingrained, possibly genetically so, warfare is in the human psyche.

[Technosoul]

They have agreed to talk to him, and so I think Jimmy Carter can do only good with this mission for peace, and it is about time someone form the USA is willing to reach out to them after all the horror we have done to the West Bank by funding Israel.

Billions of people do not want war, it is mostly only the control freaks who start the wars. People who are unhappy and love misery are those who say that peace is not possible.

Israel is just a tiny blimp on the map and the nations of Islam are spread out over a large area of the globe, wisdom would suggest that it is better to have the Islamic people as our friends then just that tiny country. To do otherwise is to endanger our homeland security.

Check the numbers, we will be better off not to side with Israel all the time, in the long run.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Technosoul Israel is just a tiny blimp on the map and the nations of Islam are spread out over a large area of the globe, wisdom would suggest that it is better to have the Islamic people as our friends then just that tiny country. To do otherwise is to endanger our homeland security.

But Islam is a moderate peaceful religion, surely your not suggesting the mightiest nation in the history of the world, bow to terrorist threats from an extreme fundamentalist minority?

[Trotsky]

Quote by: Anmon But Islam is a moderate peaceful religion, surely your not suggesting the mightiest nation in the history of the world, bow to terrorist threats from an extreme fundamentalist minority?

Ooooooh the sarcasm......

[Gods_Mercenary]

I thought I liked sarcasm, but he's pretty good.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary By nationalism do you mean the movement sparked by Napoleon in the early 19th century or nation building itself? Because war has bviously been around far before the former and, if you count tribal massacres and disputes as war, which in my mind they are, the latter.

For teh most part, nationalism is tribalism with a makeover.

For a hint on why I say this, consider the accuracy of the following:

Afghanistan is a nation of ancient tribes now caught in the middle of yet another of the nasty little wars that have visited their homeland by way of other people's troubles. In much the same way the Vietnam war spilled over into Cambodia, the Middle East conflicts over Palestine and Oil have inflicted themselves upon both Afghan and New Yorker. Gutter Journalism in Times of War by Ahmed Amr

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'll agree with that, nation building ias a continuation of our tendency towards tribalism.

[GHook93]

The only way peace can be brokered is if you talk to the real ones in charged, Hamas. I believe both sides are sick and tired of war. The Palestinian people have hopes and dreams for their children just like anyone other people. Every interview you see with the parents of a suicide bomber, they might not condemn his action (rather they usually show their sympathy), but they always say they would have stopped him/her if they knew and they wish he/she didn't do it. I do believe both countries want peace.

However, Peace will never be had talking to Abass. I think Abass has good intention, but he has no real power. Peace will only be brokered with Hamas. It is not unheard of 2 vicious enemies brokering peace. In fact its usually the soldiers that fight the war, the ones with blood on their hands, that broker that lasting Peace.

Much in I agree with Carter's efforts. I applaud Obama's pledge to unconditionally talk to Iran and Venezuela. I never understand the pledge to never talk to a country. Dialog may amount to nothing, but it can also amount to something, why no dialog always leads to greater drifting between countries. It can't hurt no matter what a politician will lead you to think. What damage did the ineffective Pelosi trip to Syria do! Absolutely no damage. I honestly wish Bush would meet with
Assssad, Alamnutjob, Hugo Fat A$$, Hamaaaasssss-hole leadership in Gaza etc. The policies of ignoring countries is not only arrogant and childish, but stupid!