War is currently the ultimate way for nations to resolve disputes. But could it be, say, mediation? Do you think there is any good way to ensure that an alternate way is the ultimate way? Such as, a way where war would always backfire against the aggressor? Or a way where war is impossible, without having to genetically alter people?

Offhand, the only way I can think of is for there to be benevolent ETs who are far more powerful than any nation, who'd slap down any aggressors. Has some major drawbacks though.

We seem not to have noticed that the world has already reached the point that war is, in fact, not in vogue as a "way for nations to resolve disputes."

Look at the "wars" that are being waged at this moment. The U.S. against... well, against a vaguely defined but definitely transnational group of terrorists. Terrorism is not war, and neither is an action to suppress it. We've got some battles going on in Africa, but if that's what war has devolved into, it won't be long before it's extinct. Chaotic, poorly funded, waged primarly against civilian targets, it has more in common with terrorism than with true warfare.

The U.S. was at war with Iraq, but only for an eyeblink before we defeated a hopelessly inferior enemy force. That wasn't so much warfare as bullying. Ditto for Afghanistan, and in that case we even admitted that we were making "war" on the Taliban, not the whole country.

What was the last real honest-to-Ares war? Our previous bullying of Iraq over its bullying of Kuwait? The five-sided donnybrook in the former Yugoslavia? The flyweight stalemate between Iraq vs. Iran?

Yes, I suppose any of those could be called war and it would be an insult to the people who died therein to deny them that strange sort of honor.

But still... Sixty years ago we had just finished a war that killed tens of millions of people, involved nuclear weapons, and resulted in the abject destruction of two of the world's most powerful nations and a complete reorganization of global politics.

Then Korea, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli War.

Then Bosnia, Somalia, Chad, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I see a trend here. I don't think that nations are finding war to be the ultimate way to resolve disputes any more. For one thing, the most recent wars haven't really resolved anything.

We now have violence on a much smaller scale. Terrorism. All in all, a vast improvement.

Well, it's true that less people are being killed compared to past wars. That may be largely due to better targeting than less waging of war.

I think the Iraq war is very much a war today and wasn't won in an "eyeblink". Without a draft I think it's very possible that the US will lose, by losing control of the oil. With the US' military superiority, wars just look different today. The US needs an army to keep the oil (or whatever resource it's stealing at the moment) flowing, but the other side needs only a lot of little bombs and cell phones for detonators.

We have the only superpower on the warpath. Clearly Iran is next and that was predictable two years ago, when the propaganda dept. started ramping up the pretext. Given that the majority of Americans are now gullible and dumb, giving up key rights for little or no gain, I give it about 50/50 odds that democracy will fall worldwide within a century. I foresee more war than ever in the future, until dictatorship reigns supreme again. Terrorism will remain as mostly what it is today--the oppressed vs. the oppressors, for independence or revenge. Let's not forget that George Washington was a terrorist.

Probably there is no alternative to war as the ultimate solution. But education can get us most of the way. Unfortunately the would-be dictators know that, so they work hard to replace education with religion; e.g. "intelligent design".

Show me which rights the Republicans took away....

The fourth and fifth amendments. Both are optional now.

Zanket instead of war, massive suicide can be commited by one side, and the computer will decide what party that is based on random selection.

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

I also think abolishing Capitalism would go a hell of a long way.

The fourth and fifth amendments. Both are optional now.

Really? I hadn't noticed such things, but then again I am here in reality.

Let's not forget that George Washington was a terrorist.It's important, especially now, to maintain the distinction between terrorism and acts of war.

Terrorists disguise themselves as civilians and blend in with their civilian population in order to avoid being targeted by their enemy's forces. Terrorists deliberately attack non-military targets for the shock value and because they're less well defended. Terrorists attempt to win support for their cause among their enemy's civilian population by extortion because their cause is too unpopular there to gain support any other way and because their enemy's military is too strong to defeat.

Warriors or soldiers identify themselves clearly to reduce the chances of their civilians being targeted by accident or out of frustration. They attack military targets or at least targets of strategic military importance like bridges. They don't much care what their enemy's civilians think of them or who supports their cause. Their mission is to render their enemy's military incapable of controlling them, or at least making military control too costly for the enemy to justify.

George Washington was a soldier, not a terrorist. Being a rebel doesn't automatically make you a terrorist, as long as you fight with honor.

Zanket instead of war, massive suicide can be commited by one side, and the computer will decide what party that is based on random selection.

That's good, now we're getting somewhere. But how can it be assured that both sides will adhere to this method? Suppose the side the computer picked won't abide it? Your method seems based on agreement. How is the agreement enforced, if not by war?

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

I also think abolishing Capitalism would go a hell of a long way.

Agreed. I think war can be mitigated through education, which helps to lead to the other things, but war will probably always be the ultimate way to resolve disputes. I don't see a way to enforce an alternative.

how about sitting everyone around a table and have a nice cup of tea :bugeye:

Really? I hadn't noticed such things, but then again I am here in reality.

Clearly your reality is but a fantasy or you failed to notice. If you're an American, your home can be searched without your knowledge or a warrant. And you can be held in solitary confinement without charge or access to counsel for years. Neither was the case before 2001.

Terrorists disguise themselves as civilians and blend in with their civilian population in order to avoid being targeted by their enemy's forces.

Like the CIA when they sneak in for an assassination?

Terrorists deliberately attack non-military targets for the shock value and because they're less well defended.

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Terrorists attempt to win support for their cause among their enemy's civilian population by extortion because their cause is too unpopular there to gain support any other way and because their enemy's military is too strong to defeat.

Like Abu Ghraib torture?

Warriors or soldiers identify themselves clearly to reduce the chances of their civilians being targeted by accident or out of frustration. They attack military targets or at least targets of strategic military importance like bridges. They don't much care what their enemy's civilians think of them or who supports their cause. Their mission is to render their enemy's military incapable of controlling them, or at least making military control too costly for the enemy to justify.

George Washington was a soldier, not a terrorist. Being a rebel doesn't automatically make you a terrorist, as long as you fight with honor.

That is a false distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. The dictionary definition of "terrorist" is "somebody using violence for political purposes". George Washington fit that definition to a tee. He overthrew his government via war.

Americans are taught the false distinction precisely so they'll think that they're on the righteous side even when they're not. It's simple brainwashing.

Clearly your reality is but a fantasy or you failed to notice. If you're an American, your home can be searched without your knowledge or a warrant. And you can be held in solitary confinement without charge or access to counsel for years. Neither was the case before 2001.

Is an American citizen and neither has happened to me or any of the thousands of citizen in my area. Hmmmm. Seems you are the one living a very ugly fantasy. Now please go tell the nurse that your medication needs adjusting.

Like the CIA when they sneak in for an assassination?

CIA are civillians


Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

A Zero factory and a nuclear pile ARE military targets.

Like Abu Ghraib torture?

Torture? I have seen sessions of truth or Dare more intense than that. Doesn't make it right, but it was not government sanctioned at all. It was rogue military personel.


That is a false distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. The dictionary definition of "terrorist" is "somebody using violence for political purposes". George Washington fit that definition to a tee. He overthrew his government via war.

Actually what the ditionary states and what a legal definition is are quite often seperate things.

George Washington did no such thing. The British government is still alive and well. He merely freed a group of people being oppressed by a governemnt intent on breaking it's own rules about representation.

Americans are taught the false distinction precisely so they'll think that they're on the righteous side even when they're not. It's simple brainwashing.

Or perhaps you are brainwashed to believe that? Oh wait there is no supportive evidence of that nor is there of your claim.

Is an American citizen and neither has happened to me or any of the thousands of citizen in my area.

If it hasn't happened to you then it cannot be so.

CIA are civillians

Terrorists are not?

A Zero factory and a nuclear pile ARE military targets.

Yep, those pesky cities keep getting in the way.

Torture? I have seen sessions of truth or Dare more intense than that.

Don't just look at the pictures. Read the articles too.

George Washington ... merely freed a group of people being oppressed by a governemnt intent on breaking it's own rules about representation.

Yes, terrorists seek freedom from oppression.

If it hasn't happened to you then it cannot be so.

Well it obviously has not happened to you either, which leads me to believe that A you are a nutter and B that you are obviously worrying about nothing.


Terrorists are not?

Well, they claim to be at war, meanwhile the CIA don't claim a thing.


Yep, those pesky cities keep getting in the way.

Still a military target. I would never call Chicago Illinois or Midland Michigan a civillian target in a nuclear exchange. Why should those two cities be exempted.


Don't just look at the pictures. Read the articles too.

That was reading the article, well the even slight credible ones anyway. I think you have no clue how bad Truth or Dare can be.


Yes, terrorists seek freedom from oppression.

Now I understand! You are Dyslexic that is supposed to be Terrorist seek to OPRESS the FREE.

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

Understand terrorists, for example? I sure hope not.

That's good, now we're getting somewhere. But how can it be assured that both sides will adhere to this method? Suppose the side the computer picked won't abide it? Your method seems based on agreement. How is the agreement enforced, if not by war?

all citizens have a small biological switch in their body that activates from a specific induced action and releases neurotoxins that kill the body.

Man that would be cool :)

Understand terrorists, for example? I sure hope not.
Absolutely.
Why not?

in my opinion the only way we can abolish war is if we reduce humanitys growth rate to zero.
this means that for every person that is born a random person must die.
if we do solve that problem we will have to figure out what to do with the people that like to wage war, the military type.

if we do solve that problem we will have to figure out what to do with the people that like to wage war, the military type.
How about gladiators. They like fighting - and as you said, somebody has to die to make way for new people...

War cannot and should not be abolished. I do not believe it should be a first resort, but it does make a great last one. I believe in negotiation, sanctions, and peace talks, but the only reason they work is becuase war is an option. Both sides know if they keep messing around and trying to shaft everyone, that there will be consequence more severe than the cessation of the twinkie supply.

War cannot and should not be abolished. I do not believe it should be a first resort, but it does make a great last one. I believe in negotiation, sanctions, and peace talks, but the only reason they work is becuase war is an option. Both sides know if they keep messing around and trying to shaft everyone, that there will be consequence more severe than the cessation of the twinkie supply.So perhaps what we're living through--the precipitous decline of warfare--is a realization at the national level that everybody would just rather stick to the negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks for as long as it takes until their argument is finally resolved. Because at the national level everybody agrees that going to war is worse than the worst possible compromise resulting from negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks. So perhaps what we're experiencing is not the abolition of war by decree, but rather by reason and enlightened self-interest.

Torture? I have seen sessions of truth or Dare more intense than that.
Point. Naked human pyramids orchestrated by a pretty young woman sounds like something my brother would have gotten into in his wild college days. Definitely would be a story to tell the grandchildren.
I also think abolishing Capitalism would go a hell of a long way.
Willing to trust the government to control all aspects of your nation's economy?
You are a lot more trusting than I.

So perhaps what we're living through--the precipitous decline of warfare--is a realization at the national level that everybody would just rather stick to the negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks for as long as it takes until their argument is finally resolved. Because at the national level everybody agrees that going to war is worse than the worst possible compromise resulting from negotiations, sanctions, and peace talks. So perhaps what we're experiencing is not the abolition of war by decree, but rather by reason and enlightened self-interest.

First not everyone agrees, just those who lament for "appeasement" and "peace in our time". The rest of us with fully operational brains know that when you do that the devils come out to play. If you are really so against war I suggest you go tell Ossama bin Laden in person. Tell him that no matter what he does you'll never wage war. That you will give him whatever it takes to appease him. I promise to only dance a little on your grave.

Absolutely.
Why not?

Ok, so say we "understand" terrorists and their motives. What good will that do us? Muslim extremists will still blow themselves up. However, we "understand" they are doing a good deed in the name of Allah and the reward of virgins... and we must not offend them!

The key is tolerance that I hope you are getting at. However for it to work, both sides must do the same... but how do you trust and KNOW the other side isn't just shitting us? Nukes are good in this respect because it creates a static warfare environment. You are afraid that if you fuck up, the other side will nuke. And vice versa. Just so long as the wrong people, like Muslim extremists, do not get a hold of a nuke... they would not care what happens, so long as their message gets across.

Ok, so say we "understand" terrorists and their motives. What good will that do us? Muslim extremists will still blow themselves up. However, we "understand" they are doing a good deed in the name of Allah and the reward of virgins... and we must not offend them!

Wrong.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the US and Israel due to what he felt was unfair foreign policy.
Most of the terrorists al Zawahiri was able to cull from a generation of frustrated young Muslims who had a great deal of anger and rage over what they see as injustuces around them and them feeling powerless.
Granted, much of the injustice was inflicted upon them by the Ba'athists, but that's really of little consequence at this point, because their rage was given a target and fueled by al Zawahiri's inflamatroy speeches and giving them a cause to fight for.
al Zawahiri and bin Laden are a couple of opportunistic chicken hawks.
None of this, of course, justifies terrorism, but that's not the point.
If you understand what fuels their hatred, you can take steps in the right direction of reducing the fuel.
War is not about individuals, it is about people identifying with a group and gathering around an ideal.

Did you ever see American History X? al Zawahiri is Cameron.
If you want to fight skinhead racist attacks, you an either attack the never-ending supply of pissed off kids who are looking for somewhere to put their anger, and have a never-ending fight on your hands...
Or you can understand what is causing these kids to cling to the people who are feeding them this shit, address the actual problems and, as a result, take the power away from the "leaders".
Without followers, you have no power.
Withour understanding the cause of the problem, you can't sway the followers.

When we saw what was happening with al Zawahiri, when he was first arrested in connection with Anwar Sadat, (which we DID see) we could have taken measures to head his movement off at the pass by addressing, diplomatically, the cause of the anger of the young Muslims that were creating a following around him BEFORE they became terrorists for bin Laden.
We could have NOT supported the Ba'athists in power, rather than simply acting blinded by the money coming in from being partners with the murderous, oppressive bastards.

We could have opened the door to the oppressed, abused people BEFORE they fell prey to the first person who promised them and end to their difficulties and convinvced them that America and Israel was behind all their problems.
We could have practoced better foreign policy in the first place to not give ammunition to those that would act as the chicken hawks.
We could have addressed the problem and taken al Zawahiri and bin Laden's power away from them by taking their followers away from them.

"Understanding" what causes individuals to become extremists can help us to garner and foster healthy, diplomatic relationships with nations of people, rather than simply temporary regimes.
"undertsanding" people does not mean that you are necessarily supporting their cause, idenitfying with them, or even relating to them.
However, if you don't understand them at all, you end up at "war" with hundreds of thousands of people who hate you, and young skinheads beating immigrants, blacks and Jews and you don't even know why.

The force and power of this "Holy War" has little or nothing to do with Islam at all.
Just as the force and power of the skinhead movement has little or nothing to do with racism.
They are both used as a tool by a relatively small group of individuals who find mainly pissed off and confused teenage males who are highly open to suggestion and manipulation.
Hitler was a brilliant man because he knew to indoctrinate the youth and give them a cause or purpose.

There is an entire generation of young Muslims whose parents were rich and influential people in Iraq.
Those parents were stripped of their money and power or killed by the Ba'athists and these kids ended up being stripped of their dignity.
Now they are mad.
People like al Zawahiri and bin Laden come along and give them that purpose.
Not only are they mad, but they have nothing to lose and now they have something to fight for.
And unless the causes of their anger and rage are understood (and addressed), we have absolutely no chance at ever "winning" this.

Nukes are good in this respect because it creates a static warfare environment.
Yeah, the Cold War worked like a charm, didn't it? :rolleyes:
We outspent the Russians and their economy collapsed before ours did (not too long, before, at at that).
Not to mention the torture it was on the people who loved under a constant cloud of Nuclear Holocaust.
Are you old enough to remember that?
Do you remember it clearly?

Also, if there are ANY nuclear weapons, there is NO WAY of keeping them out of the hands of your enemy.

Willing to trust the government to control all aspects of your nation's economy?
You are a lot more trusting than I.
Quite the contrary, actually.
Allowing the Government to base policy on the market trends and the whims of the heads of business is what opens the door to bribery and corruption in government.
At least the politicians can be hled accountable to the people - that is if the people are willing to learn what is actually happening and had the balls to stand up to it.

In a Capitalist system, the government and policy is, by matter of course, controlled by the bottom line.
Cost should never be a factor in problems such as healthcare, education, housing, food, clean drinking water...
But when you have a government that is driven by the needs of a profit-driven private sector (which, of course is controlled by a smaller and smaller group of peole in the age of uncheked coprorate proliferation that we have now) then such social needs as these get the shaft in preference of the profits of these businesses (which amounts ot money and more power in the pockets of the same select few who are unaccountable to the public).
The laws concerning business and industry should all reflect the Democratic ideal of the people being the beneficiaries of their work and efforts.
Right now the average CEO is making 400 times what the average emplyess in his business is making.
In the fifties and early sixties it was closer to 25 times.
We have created a finanical aristocracy that runs this country, ad there is only one way around that.
Every law, when considering the validity of it, should pass one simple litmus test: Would this have the greatest amount of benefit to the greatest number of people.
If the answer is "No", it should not be law.
Follow the money. Who is the greatest beneficiary of the vast majority of corporate law? Not the citizens - the CEO's and other executives.

What is the social benefit of allowing farms and ranches to be run by corporate conglomerates, for example?
It puts smaller, privately run, family farms and ranches out of business.
It put thousands of people out of work, and those who can find work get paid less.
It gives the Agribusiness a greater ability to lobby congress and get around public health restrictions.
It removes accountability for food quality.
What is the benefit?
Food costs a little less?
If more people were working and making a decent living and the corporations were more tightly regulated the slightly higher cost of food would be a welcome price to pay.

In the fifties and sixties, someone could raise a family, buy a house, put their kids through school and retire with a pension on a single income, working in a factory.
Now, with two parents working fulltime, people are just barely scraping by.
Last year was the first time in history, since the Great Depression that Americans have borrowed more than they have saved.
Why?
Because the government is a corporate bitch.
The only way to fix it is to take the money out of politics, and enact laws that benefit teh masses, not the aristocrats.
I am not talking about Communism, not even Socialism, but Democracy, the way it SHOULD work!

all citizens have a small biological switch in their body that activates from a specific induced action and releases neurotoxins that kill the body.

That's a little like how the Constitution works. The people can change it for short term gain, but that's hard to do. People could rip out the switch en masse and start warring, but if it's hard or painful to remove then that would be a good deterrent and promote alternatives. I like it! Ideally the switch would be activated by warring only; i.e. it cannot be hacked.