War or Peace?  

Hi bantilesroger! I completely believe that all the quotes mentioned are very relevant and resonant in our present time. War is destructive and there are no winners in wars. It is true that the leaders of each and every nation pulls the string and we have to make a stand against violence and wars. I think I will tell my president and all the senators and congressmen, that if they want to go into war--they do it themselves and not send their people to the battlefield. They be the first to wear the soldier's uniform, carry their weapons and be the frontliners in the battlefield and not just shouting orders from a very safe distance!
Take care and have a great day!
lovelots..faith210

MAYBE I should tell them to read the book? I don't know, because I hadn't even heard of it, much less read it. But I think those kinds of ideas SHOULD be thought about.
War is nothing short of destructive and it is only the war-mongers who long for it.
If indeed this WERE a civilized WORLD, war should not exist, but not all who live in the world, and not all who govern, are civilized.

Of course it is the gereedy that start the wars matbe the ungreesdsy can stop them

It seems that only those actively fighting a war really know what it's all about. Leaders are rarely veterans of wars, they usually get light duty away from battles if they get any at all.

I think that if a nation wants to go to war, the leaders should have to battle each other to the death and whoever wins will face a firing squad.

I'm going to look that book up, it sounds excellent! It should also be required for every world leader to read and take to heart. Wouldn't that be nice!

I believe that all wars should end. I wish there could be peace on earth but that is not going to happen anytime soon. We have to have these wars to find peace.

War cannot be defined only one areas of interest. By law it is a crime subject. By culture it is part of warrior and the colonial factor. By custom it is part of defense. In world of business, it is a great economy construction and destruction. That is why, by historical facts and figures started before centuries there is no one country that able to maintain a total peace keeping for more than 50 years.

That is called a human nature of war development. Part of human kind to develop reciprocating the discovery and invention that will never stop; justly like we need heat to cook our food. Without war, dominant party or group will be just like a God. Do you still remember the history of Moses and the Pharaoh?. What happen to the people during that time?. Not developing.

Japan won't be as what it is now, if Hiroshima not involved in the war. There are advantages of war when we talk about defense. Something like our stomach creating the "war" on needing food.

We the citizens always want peace not war.War means bloodshed,war means destruction.Warmongers are the enemy of civlization.In the past war destroyed
many civilizations.We want to protect civilization.So we don't want war.War stop the progress of mankind .As a sovereign citizen my appeal to my Head of State solve the problems with other State or States by negotiation,not by War.Thanks.

That should be a very interesting book.. hehe ^_^ I like all the quotes in there and they are very true, as well as very beautifully written ^_^

War is never a right thing, and the ones suffering tends to be those innocent ones.. Bloods are shed from soldiers and civilians, but in the end, the ones whom gets honoured are the ones whom goes to war..

More than often, everybody is saying war will be the last thing on their minds, and yet in every country, all males of legal age is made to go thru military training, just in case there's war.. If that's the case, why not go to war instead, rather than betaing round the bush for the same purpose in the end.. lol =D

It's been a long time since I saw someone use the expression, "Sovereign Citizen". Congrats on that score.

What is not understood by most people is that war is the basic state of mankind. While he may enjoy peace and prosperity, it is actually war and agression that is his most vital instinct, for that is what distinguishes him from the rest of the animal kingdom. Yes, he can reason, and a conciousness of himself, but with those virtues he is also a warlike creature that needs to establish superiority in all that he does.

For example, the animals don't make business deals with each other. That don't have leveraged buyouts. Man does. The animals don't have any need for money, whereas man not only needs it, many develop the love of it, and that is how wars start - everytime. Once men, in this case, get together to establish superiority over other men (and I use the gender in a generic sense, since women are also involved, though to a lesser extent), then the ones who are getting the short end of the stick develop strategies to gain back what they lost. And they choose leaders who promise to do so, such as the people of Russia in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, labor did not share equally with those in power. Labor was much more successful in the U.S. and Britain in being paid good wages, and enjoying a middle-class lifestyle. My point is that the more the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, the more appeal a strategy to take over another country is going to have, or the more appeal a revolution or a civil war is going to have.

That is why the U.S. has not been in a major conflict since WWII. Even though many died and were injured in Vietnam, it paled in comparison to WWII. Remember that WWII was essentially FDR's way of dealing with the Great Depression, which all of his programs had not ended. However, by making Hitler out to be the worst evil on the planet, that had to be vanquished at all costs, both Roosevelt and Churchhill were able to take their two nations to war, despite the mood of the populace, which preferred a peaceful settlement to the conflict. And what was the conflict really over? For sure the impoverished peoples of the U.S. and Britain had no stake in it. It was over the fact that Germany, under Hitler, was taking itself out of the international banking system, and was creating its own wealth internally. He was encouraging all the German peoples in whatever nation to do the same. As insidious as his actions have been made out to be, he had somehow rescued Germany from the Great Depression, well ahead of the U.S. and Britain, and the elitists in those respective countries were furious. Somehow or another, Poland got involved. Thankfully, my great-grandparents on my mother's side had gotten out of Dodge before that whole mess got started. And then there is Russia, or the USSR as it was known then...

Russia, that great bear of a nation. She moves slowly, until she strikes. She waits, until the time is right. She thinks in terms of the next logical step. She sleeps, she wakes, and then she starts eating, and eating, and eating, and eating. She looks at you with those placid eyes, and then she starts running in your direction. Ponderous, murderous, and with claws that can rip your guts out. That's how she is. It was Russia that defeated Hitler, not the U.S. and not Britain. It was Russia that captured an entire Army at Stalingrad. It was Russia that slowly made Hitler's supply lines so thin that he could no longer sustain them. It was Russia that allowed the severe cold and snow and ice and mud weaken the German armies. Despite Napoleon's debacle, Hitler wanted to try to take over the largest in land mass of all the nations on earth.

What was Russia's stake in all this, as she had done the same thing as Hitler, that is, taken themselves out of the international monetary system? She really had no stake, and that was why Stalin made the peace agreement with Hitler prior to him attacking. It was simple, in Stalin's mind. Divide up Poland, who was weak, and slowly, incrementally, gain more territory in the Baltics, and above all else secure the oil in the Middle East. Through diplomacy. You see, Russia never does anything forcefully if she can gain it diplomatically or with their seemingly endless supply of money.

The U.S., on the other hand, never does anything diplomatically if she can gain it by a quick strike at the jugular. We're represented by the eagle, and that means that our Air Force is always our priority when it comes to the military. Therefore, to give an example, when Bush saw that the corporate interests he and Cheney represented wanted access to the Iraqi oilfields, it only made sense to make Hussein into another Hitler, and use our Air Force to bomb the holy crap out of them until, "hooray!", we overthrew yet another powerful nation. This followed on the heels of such awesome adversaries as Haiti, the Sudan, and Grenada. Woh! What victories those were! What sacrifices had to be made! Accompanied by the ubiquitous news media, we showed how it was possible for us to do 14,000 sorties in Gulf War I alone and then who knows how many in Gulf War II, and destroy not only military targets, but individual homes and private businesses, with all those insurgents inside. Oh, they may not have looked like insurgents, but even at 6 months old, those babies might sometime in the future be wearing turbans and shouting "Death to Israel!", or "Death to America!".

I've come to the conclusion that if mankind didn't want war, they'd soon put a stop to it. The truth is that they like it, and they enjoy it just as they enjoy a football game. One last little story: I was playing in a band back in the 90's when Gulf War I started. These other musicians were East Texas rednecks, all the way. I love East Texas, by the way. And I loved being in that band, called "Wasted Space". When Gulf War started, in order defend that defenseless, impoverished nation of Kuwait, I was against it. The lead guitar player, Earl, was all for it. "Let's go kick his a*s!", he said, speaking of Sadaam Hussein (no disrespect meant to our current President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama). Anyway, I says to Earl, in between sets, "Look, Earl, this is about money, not a real threat to the U.S." He wouldn't hear of it. As he was a brown belt in Ishinru, and at the time I was only a yellow belt, I thought it best not to let the argument get too heated. But, despite the fact that we had no real interest in the conflict, that we were not threatened, that we did not then, nor do we now, have a clue as to the politics or the culture of the Middle East, Earl wanted to go kick some butt. Not him, of course, but rather 18 and 19 year olds that were not even going to be given a choice as to whether or not they should have to go kill large numbers of civilians, destroy oil wells that were clearly not our property, and otherwise create mayhem for the benefit of people that had more money than they would see in a lifetime.

Russia, through its leaders, is gradually, incrementally, gaining control of all the oil and gas reserves. China, through its leaders, is gradually, incrementally, and with a certain artistic flair, gaining control of the world's food supply in order to feed its 1 billion plus population. The U.S. and Britain are, at the moment, as far down in the sinkhole, and sinking further, as any two nations can be. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is seeking to make us look like the most righteous nation on Earth, by freezing the pay salaries of all his White House staff that make in excess of $100,000 or more. What about a pay cut? Never mind. Can't go there, can we? And so the games go on. All it requires, and all it will ever require, is that young men and women sacrifice their lives to insure that every extremely wealthy banker, oilman, and government beauracrat making $140,000 a year do not have to do without. Ah! Such a virtuous, noble way to take a bullet in the head, or an IUD under your Humvee, or a doggone blast from a suicide bomber who no doubt will enjoy 70 virgins upon getting to paradise.