The End of War

[TransmutingSoul]

Whatever it was, practical or silly, fake or genuine, it did not change Iran.

It did indeed change Iran, the Caliphate fell. its has slipped back a little, for a little while, but, It has a great future, Iran. I would visit Iran for pilgrimage, so would many millions more.

Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

The path to end war is central to the Message of Baha’u’llah, so it may be beneficial to offer some more of those thoughts and what actions may be required.

It has been offered that, "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established."

it goes on to say that, "This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded."

It appears that the end of war will not be any time soon, as if these are the prerequisites, then this discussion has shown mankind is not yet considering that is an option.

So it is offered a lesser peace is required and how to obtain that lesser peace has been layer out in this advice.

"....The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny. …The day is approaching when all the peoples of the world will have adopted one universal language and one common script. When this is achieved, to whatsoever city a man may journey, it shall be as if he were entering his own home. These things are obligatory and absolutely essential...."

So obligatoryand essential! I wonder what will make us consider these actions?

Regards Tony
.

I was on your side (still am). Don't ruin it with religion or unrealistic goals.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was on your side (still am). Don't ruin it with religion or unrealistic goals.

If you are on the side of peace, that is the side you need to be on.

My side, which includes what Baha'u'llah offered, is not in conflict with the path to peace.

Peace be with you always, Regards Tony

 

[Heyo]

If you are on the side of peace, that is the side you need to be on.

We agree on that 100%.

My side, which includes what Baha'u'llah offered, is not in conflict with the path to peace.

Peace be with you always, Regards Tony

I don't mind your religion, especially since it is a peaceful religion.
I just like to keep (the lack of) religion out of discussions about (mostly) non religious topics.
I think people of all religions and none can and should agree that war is bad. No god needed.
Referring to religious teachings may incentivise people of the same religion but it also may alienate people of other religions or no religion. Peace is a goal that stands on itself.

 

[Augustus]

Spreading democracy? You really believe that or think they believed that?
I can't give the benefit of the doubt (Hanlon's razor) to someone in a position of knowledge when the level of stupidity required for that would also make them practically unable to live unassisted.

Intellectuals have always been prone to believing their theories will work in reality, look at how many well meaning, highly intelligent Western Europeans actively aided the Soviet Union, even past the point where they could reasonably pretend it was creating a better society.

Human hubris of exactly this kind has always existed, and is far more probable than some international conspiracy to enrich a private company in the most inefficient way possible.

The neocons had many goals, all of which they had publicly stated years before the Iraq War. as part of a desire to create a post-Cold War international order favourable to liberal democratic regimes.

A combination of spreading democracy by force, maintaining US leadership and military preeminence to prevent rival powers achieving parity and creating a "Pax Americana" by demonstrating the US was willing to use force against 'rogue' regimes.

They believed American military power had protected Europe from the Soviets and allowed them to reap a post-WW2 'peace dividend' without realising it was only possible due to the protection offered by the US.

You can question whether or not their analysis was correct or useful, but if you judge you live in a Hobbesian international environment then peace only comes from deterrence and the alternatives to American leadership could be far worse.

This doesn't require evilness or conspiracy theories, just a particular worldview that may or may not be true.

Greed and/or stupidity, mostly. Some were sponsored by their own military industrial complex, others acted out of national pride. Obviously it is still a sign of international importance to partake in illegal attack wars.

Many were centre-left politicians acting in the spirit of liberal interventionism, something with a long history in human history.

Hubris of course, they wanted to be seen as powerful leaders who changed the world so got suckered in to the "grand plan".

The idea they were thinking "let's have a war to enrich company X" is not realistic.

... if nobody is enforcing those rules, they aren't worth the paper they are written upon. I don't know if anyone could stop the US from attacking whoever they like but when Russia is up to no good, there are immediate economic consequences, embargoes, tariffs, seized assets, etc. Nothing like that happened to the US, not even after it was revealed that they had lied about the WMDs.

Limited economic consequences from some in the West, most do nothing as they don't care. Even Europe does as little as possible as it is dependent on Russian energy so can't really do much.

But that's the problem. Countries are self-interested and there is no one to enforce the rules and there never will be without true global governance which is unworkable.

What do you think is the best way to enforce laws fairly?

Without "global governance" there is no guarantee to "live and let live" as there is always the threat of war.

Yes, you are right there is always the threat of war and that is best mitigated by deterrence and non-intervention.

True global governance doesn't work as you said you won't give up your way of life and neither will anyone else.

Even if you have limited global governance like the UN it is still dependent on its powerful members and is subject to quid-pro-quo horse trading rather than being democratic.

Nope. There are other ways.

Such as? What are the ways you can stop warmongers without the credible threat of force?

People like Putin understand the West will talk a good game but ultimately do nothing and reach a compromise that leaves him better off than he started.

What do you think someone like him would do if they actually were a global superpower with a dominant military?

 

[Augustus]

Many Muslim Persians in the middle of the 1800's were changed dramatically by a Message of peace.

Change is as simple as a concious choice, backed by the much more difficult actions.

But they were able to put down their arms and learn war no more and educate their female offspring as well as give them equality.

Regards Tony

Culture does not change our genetic makeup though, and as environments change, so does culture.

This is why things move in cycles, we get the good times then the bad.

 

[Heyo]

The idea they were thinking "let's have a war to enrich company X" is not realistic.

Why not? They are capitalists. And making money any way possible is the capitalist's creed. I see no contradiction.

Limited economic consequences from some in the West, most do nothing as they don't care. Even Europe does as little as possible as it is dependent on Russian energy so can't really do much.

But that's the problem. Countries are self-interested and there is no one to enforce the rules and there never will be without true global governance which is unworkable.

What do you think is the best way to enforce laws fairly?

Kindergarten kids don't know about the Tragedy of the Commons. Adults can learn about it. Once we have adults in our governments we can enforce economic punishment in a coordinated way. We have overcome the Tragedy in other contexts, unions are a good example.

What do you think someone like him would do if they actually were a global superpower with a dominant military?

Exactly the same the US does now.

 

[Augustus]

Why not? They are capitalists. And making money any way possible is the capitalist's creed. I see no contradiction.

Because it requires lots of people to join in a vast murderous international conspiracy, despite many the people involved having little or no personal financial gain, and keep it secret which people are terrible. All this to enrich other people.

Politicians could enrich much bigger and much wealthier companies far more easily and with far less risk if they really wanted to.

Cut taxes. Give government contracts. Reduce regulations, etc.

Kindergarten kids don't know about the Tragedy of the Commons. Adults can learn about it. Once we have adults in our governments we can enforce economic punishment in a coordinated way. We have overcome the Tragedy in other contexts, unions are a good example.

In a community of sovereign nations this will never work. Trying to get 7 billion people with wildly differing values and interests signing from the same hymn sheet is not a realistic proposition.

Anyway, if they are powerful enough they can either take what they want, or make enough people fear them to think it's better to be their friend than their enemy.

Countries generally think about their own interests first.

Exactly the same the US does now.

You would be equally happy with Putin controlling the most powerful military in the world?

 

[Heyo]

Because it requires lots of people to join in a vast murderous international conspiracy, despite many the people involved having little or no personal financial gain, and keep it secret which people are terrible. All this to enrich other people.

Politicians could enrich much bigger and much wealthier companies far more easily and with far less risk if they really wanted to.

Cut taxes. Give government contracts. Reduce regulations, etc.

That is exactly how it is done. When you are in the business of war, you need government contracts, you need export regulations reduced. (Cut taxes benefit all businesses.) It's not that you can sell military grade weaponry on the farmers market.

In a community of sovereign nations this will never work. Trying to get 7 billion people with wildly differing values and interests signing from the same hymn sheet is not a realistic proposition.

Ever heard about the Montreal Protocol?

Anyway, if they are powerful enough they can either take what they want, or make enough people fear them to think it's better to be their friend than their enemy.

Countries generally think about their own interests first.

Yep, just like the school yard bully who can take it up with any one but wouldn't fare well against more than two. When his victims would band together, he'd be out of luck. But too often they don't. Doesn't mean they can't.

You would be equally happy with Putin controlling the most powerful military in the world?

At least he's more predictable than the erratic US.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Culture does not change our genetic makeup though, and as environments change, so does culture.

This is why things move in cycles, we get the good times then the bad.

I agree, it is actually written that everything is a cycle, I offer quotes in confirmation.

"In this material world, time has changing cycles and place is subject to varying conditions. Seasons follow one another and individuals progress, regress and develop. …

The very existence of things must ever depend upon, and be perpetuated through, these cycles and successions…The spiritual cycles associated with the Prophets of God proceed in like manner. – Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, pp. 82-83.

I see we have just started the cycle of good and that is why we are working towards unity and peace.

"...Now the new age is here and creation is reborn. Humanity hath taken on new life … and the reviving spring is here. All things are now made new. Arts and industries have been reborn, there are new discoveries in science, and there are new inventions … Renewal is the order of the day." – Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 252

I see that good is built in to our capacity.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

That is exactly how it is done. When you are in the business of war, you need government contracts, you need export regulations reduced. (Cut taxes benefit all businesses.) It's not that you can sell military grade weaponry on the farmers market.

Why are these politicians trying to enrich a handful of other people who they are not related to?

Why weapons companies are the only thing they care about?

The US restricts who it sells weapons to. Would just be easier to relax these restrictions if all they cared about was profit.

It's an absurd idea that there is a massive conspiracy to start global wars by people who simply want to enrich other random people because "capitalism".

There are easier ways to enrich random people.

Of course people do exploit these wars to enrich themselves, but outrageous conspiracies involving thousands of people in dozens of countries don't stay secret for 20 years. How did all these thousands of people benefit from enriching Blackwater to the extent they have kept perfect silence about the massive crimes they saw others commit?

Ever heard about the Montreal Protocol?

A very limited treaty regarding something neither economically, politically or culturally important that still features people not complying with it as it suits their interest?

Ending war by global governance when things are economically, politically and culturally essential is not even remotely comparable.

Yep, just like the school yard bully who can take it up with any one but wouldn't fare well against more than two. When his victims would band together, he'd be out of luck. But too often they don't. Doesn't mean they can't.

They would fare perfectly well against 100 badly armed nations.

Either you have a strong military or others can make you do what they want.

At least he's more predictable than the erratic US.

You would prefer the strongest military in the world to belong to someone who is predictable in the fact he will use it in whatever way he can to benefit his country and protect his corrupt regime?

Basically you wouldn't mind parts of the EU being annexed because at least it's "predictable"? Doesn't say much for 'global governance' if you are so ambivalent about parts of EU.

 

[Kooky]

You would be equally happy with Putin controlling the most powerful military in the world?

Are you happy with the current state of affairs?

 

[Augustus]

Are you happy with the current state of affairs?

Wouldn't say happy, but it certainly could be much worse.

I would much prefer America to have the most powerful military rather than Russia or China.

You?

 

[MonkeyFire]

I am a die hard pacifist and war is an automatic angel, as is passive Jesus. Eternal war needs to be realized to protect pacifist, while they manifest ultimate power of equanimity, and hippie doodles will dominate the earth with a power not matched since the dawn of mankind. It is the most inhumane thing to let the “angel of eternal war” not exist, because you are diehard moralist. Non-violence should account for the lives of soldiers by nature. Let’s no be cruel to haters ever again, sorrow has a natural effect on depression of human beings as a natural remedy. I promise you we need Hate to save us, and He will not be a tool. Pacifist need to understand this and it will create peace. Start revolution, start the war of mankind!

Do not rest your soldiers!!!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You would prefer the strongest military in the world to belong to someone who is predictable in the fact he will use it in whatever way he can to benefit his country and protect his corrupt regime?

Disarmament is needed.

The strongest Military would have to be under command of a world legislative. The only body that has the power to police world affairs.

Regards Tony

 

[Kooky]

Wouldn't say happy, but it certainly could be much worse.

I would much prefer America to have the most powerful military rather than Russia or China.

You?

I would prefer if all militaries were abolished, alongside the very concept of imperialist military power.

Not being a direct beneficiary of either imperialist order - American, Russian, or Chinese - I don't really care who sits at the top of this abusive system of military oppression and destruction.

 

[Augustus]

I would prefer if all militaries were abolished, alongside the very concept of imperialist military power.

And I want to travel to distant galaxies, but that's not going to happen either.

Not being a direct beneficiary of either imperialist order - American, Russian, or Chinese - I don't really care who sits at the top of this abusive system of military oppression and destruction

You have benefitted from US power as you didn't grow up in the Soviet bloc (assuming you think that was a good thing) .

You also wouldn't care if parts of the EU that made up the former Soviet bloc were forcibly returned to Russian control?

That's EU solidarity for you

 

[Kooky]

And I want to travel to distant galaxies, but that's not going to happen either.

Neither is the US imperialist war machine going to stay on top of things forever. Their dominance is already crumbling, so you may want to re-assess your unwavering loyalty once the Emperor flees Rome or is deposed by one of his Germanic mercenaries.

You have benefitted from US power as you didn't grow up in the Soviet bloc (assuming you think that was a good thing) .

The Soviet bloc has not existed for 30 years at this point in time. Perhaps you should find a more recent boogeyman to scare me into supporting the military apparatus that brought us Abu Ghraib and multiple war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even when the USSR still existed, plenty of countries managed to avoid entanglement into either alliance.
Yugoslavia, India, Sweden and Switzerland are all examples of countries that didn't join either bloc and maintained their independence.

You also wouldn't care if parts of the EU that made up the former Soviet bloc were forcibly returned to Russian control?

Obviously I reject all oppression no matter where it comes from, but I don't see where I come in when one of the world's military superpowers wants to flex its muscles by bringing war and misery to another part of the planet.

It doesn't really matter whether it's Russia or China or the US, people will die and live in misery, and I will be powerless to stop them regardless.

 

[Augustus]

Neither is the US imperialist war machine going to stay on top of things forever. Their dominance is already crumbling, so you may want to re-assess your unwavering loyalty once the Emperor flees Rome or is deposed by one of his Germanic mercenaries.

"unwavering loyalty"

If you can't differentiate between "America may not be great but it's better than totalitarians and ultra-nationalist psychopaths" and "unwavering loyalty" then I can't help you.

I also think many anti-Americans will grow to realise that a world without US military dominance won't be more peaceful or conducive to their values.

The Soviet bloc has not existed for 30 years at this point in time. Perhaps you should find a more recent boogeyman to scare me into supporting the military apparatus that brought us Abu Ghraib and multiple war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even when the USSR still existed, plenty of countries managed to avoid entanglement into either alliance.
Yugoslavia, India, Sweden and Switzerland are all examples of countries that didn't join either bloc and maintained their independence.

It is very naive to think Central Europe would not have maintained its independence by "staying neutral".

Obviously I reject all oppression no matter where it comes from, but I don't see where I come in when one of the world's military superpowers wants to flex its muscles by bringing war and misery to another part of the planet.

It doesn't really matter whether it's Russia or China or the US, people will die and live in misery, and I will be powerless to stop them regardless

It matters to many of your EU brethren that they don't live under a Russian yoke.

 

[Kooky]

It is very naive to think Central Europe would not have maintained its independence by "staying neutral".

I don't think it's naive to reflect on readily available historical facts.