Peace, peace, peace... please

[etienne]

When I read be cause's comment in the War, war, war thread, I thought that we do need  a thread for peace.

it's becoming obvious there can be no peace anywhere while shit is flying in the ASIF.
     
                       ' Be cause ' he said .

    (A world on it's knees is just an effect) .

I added. A "please" at the end because starting a war is quite easy,  you just have to let your feelings play out without thinking too much.
Starting a peace is a long work on yourself with  the others,  including the opposite side. Quite a difficult task.

The actual situation is quite worrying because we might be getting closer to the use of nuclear weapons.

It is surprising how people try to adapt the law to their wishes wenn they are getting ready to awful actions. What is the need of changing the law before killing a few millions people if you are the boss anyway? The Nazis also did it for the concentration camps, for example people had to loose their nationality before being killed, they didn't want to murder German,  French or Polish citizens.

Added: the "please" is also to ask you all to avoid foul language on this thread.  If we want peace,  the first step is to respect one another.

[KiwiGriff]

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine .
Israel belongs to Israel.
BOTH HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM THE HIGH GROUND.
 

[etienne]

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine .
Israel belongs to Israel.
BOTH HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM THE HIGH GROUND.
 

And Palestine belongs to Palestine.

You have great Serbia, great Israel, great Russia, Pangermanism, great Japan, great Marocco,  great France, great China, great Mexico... unfortunately there aren't enough planets for everyone to be great, so let's just be normal.

[The Walrus]

Ukraine belongs to Ukraine .
Israel belongs to Israel.
BOTH HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM THE HIGH GROUND.
 

And Palestine belongs to Palestine.

Then Palestine should stay within their own borders.  Bad things tend to happen when they leave.

[zenith]

Then Palestine should stay within their own borders.  Bad things tend to happen when they leave.

what borders? it's not a country, it's occupied territory. do you mean the 1967 borders per the united nations? if the united states stayed within it's borders it wouldn't be an empire and israel would cease to exist.

regardless, the premise of this thread is pie in the sky.

russia has $77 trillion in resources that the west wants and israel is an american aircraft carrier in the most oil rich region of the world.

"full spectrum dominance" is the name of the game. war on every level 24/7.

"Remove, Reduce, Inform" - Mike Benz On Government, Censorship, Election Tactics & Media Control

[Freegrass]

Peace will not happen. It'll only get worse, because the ruling class wants it that way. The more divided people are, the more they can do whatever the hell they want.

Just look at this Arctic Sea Ice Forum, where we're supposed to debate the cryosphere and climate change. Instead, we're fighting each other about politics and war.

If we want peace, get rid of the politics section, because right now, everyone is angry at someone for something that has to do with politics. Either the wars, transgenders, or vaccines.

I say we focus back on the biggest thread to humanity and world peace. If we do that, maybe we can come together and get along a little better again. Because it's only going to get worse. More war, more starvation, more hate. So please, let's have one place on the internet where we don't have to deal with all that hate.

[zenith]

censorship is peace, joy and apple pie.

[DanLittle]

I come here for the ice updates but enjoy the diversity of thinking that really shines in the politics threads. I try not to get too worked though because it's all just noise that's happening as the world continues to cook. Like Freegrass stated, it will continue to get worse and the powers at be want us angry and divided.

Peace in this world is as unrealistic as peace in a thread debating politically charged topics, but is peace really something we should strive for?

With each other, sure, it's nice to not be mean to people. To overcome the manufactured division of the people, absolutely, a lot of the outrage is driven by media for various reasons other than our best interest.

However, living in a world being run into the ground by a relatively small, corrupt, power hungry number of individuals, should we peacefully sit by and let it burn? To be clear I'm not advocating for violence, just proposing the question for the sake of debate. Is there a point where the conditions get so bad that peace is no longer the morally right move?

I think peace should 100% be the goal, at least with each other to get on the same page about the fact that our biggest threat to existing is the destruction of the world we live on. Maybe then it gets to a point where the question is irrelevant because the will of the people turns to climate action instead of trans people, Haitians, or whatever the next viral argument is about.

Lots of debate about Democrats and Republicans lately, but neither party is able to make meaningful impacts on this issue. Anyone in office who responded the way that is required would get voted out immediately because an effective response would require an entirely new system of how we exist on this planet, and the majority of people aren't willing to get behind that, especially when they don't understand the problem.

Whether it's morally right or not, peace is still my goal. For myself, because it's all I have control over. Peace with the wars, peace with the extreme weather, peace with politics. I'm lucky though to not be physically affected by those things. I imagine as the effects of everything continue and become more widespread, we'll all look back on the current times, that may seem chaotic to us now, as "back when it was peaceful."

The status of NATO, or who uses what bathroom, probably goes to the back of your mind when your house is floating down the road, or your road is floating down the hill, or your hill is floating away.

[Freegrass]

I come here for the ice updates but enjoy the diversity of thinking that really shines in the politics threads. I try not to get too worked though because it's all just noise that's happening as the world continues to cook. Like Freegrass stated, it will continue to get worse and the powers at be want us angry and divided.

Peace in this world is as unrealistic as peace in a thread debating politically charged topics, but is peace really something we should strive for?

With each other, sure, it's nice to not be mean to people. To overcome the manufactured division of the people, absolutely, a lot of the outrage is driven by media for various reasons other than our best interest.

However, living in a world being run into the ground by a relatively small, corrupt, power hungry number of individuals, should we peacefully sit by and let it burn? To be clear I'm not advocating for violence, just proposing the question for the sake of debate. Is there a point where the conditions get so bad that peace is no longer the morally right move?

I think peace should 100% be the goal, at least with each other to get on the same page about the fact that our biggest threat to existing is the destruction of the world we live on. Maybe then it gets to a point where the question is irrelevant because the will of the people turns to climate action instead of trans people, Haitians, or whatever the next viral argument is about.

Lots of debate about Democrats and Republicans lately, but neither party is able to make meaningful impacts on this issue. Anyone in office who responded the way that is required would get voted out immediately because an effective response would require an entirely new system of how we exist on this planet, and the majority of people aren't willing to get behind that, especially when they don't understand the problem.

Whether it's morally right or not, peace is still my goal. For myself, because it's all I have control over. Peace with the wars, peace with the extreme weather, peace with politics. I'm lucky though to not be physically affected by those things. I imagine as the effects of everything continue and become more widespread, we'll all look back on the current times, that may seem chaotic to us now, as "back when it was peaceful."

The status of NATO, or who uses what bathroom, probably goes to the back of your mind when your house is floating down the road, or your road is floating down the hill, or your hill is floating away.

+1 Well said Dan. Love your name. You can call me big Dan. 

[etienne]

...
I think peace should 100% be the goal, at least with each other to get on the same page about the fact that our biggest threat to existing is the destruction of the world we live on. Maybe then it gets to a point where the question is irrelevant because the will of the people turns to climate action instead of trans people, Haitians, or whatever the next viral argument is about.
...

I think that this really is the point. Martin Luther King - he is long dead - already said that we have the choice between peace and annihilation. Now the situation evolved and we have no time for war, we can't destroy what's left of our planet and need to handle climate change as first priority.
So I feel that any justification for war goes the wrong way, there is no righteous war, there is no good anymore that can come out of a war like after WWII. Why should we need so much destruction to find out that peace is the only option ?

[El Cid]

It just shows how West-centered the whole internet is that when peace or war comes up everybody on these threads talks about Ukraine and Israel. No mentions of the Ethiopian civil war, no mention of the biggest humanitarian disaster of the last decades (and civil war) in the Sudan, no mention of Baluchistan (Pakistan), or the Myanmar war, or China vs India, Chinese ships invading every morsel of the South China Sea, no mention of Haiti, the Rwandan army invading and fighting at least 10 armed groups in Congo and so on and on and on.

[The Walrus]

I come here for the ice updates but enjoy the diversity of thinking that really shines in the politics threads. I try not to get too worked though because it's all just noise that's happening as the world continues to cook. Like Freegrass stated, it will continue to get worse and the powers at be want us angry and divided.

Peace in this world is as unrealistic as peace in a thread debating politically charged topics, but is peace really something we should strive for?

With each other, sure, it's nice to not be mean to people. To overcome the manufactured division of the people, absolutely, a lot of the outrage is driven by media for various reasons other than our best interest.

However, living in a world being run into the ground by a relatively small, corrupt, power hungry number of individuals, should we peacefully sit by and let it burn? To be clear I'm not advocating for violence, just proposing the question for the sake of debate. Is there a point where the conditions get so bad that peace is no longer the morally right move?

I think peace should 100% be the goal, at least with each other to get on the same page about the fact that our biggest threat to existing is the destruction of the world we live on. Maybe then it gets to a point where the question is irrelevant because the will of the people turns to climate action instead of trans people, Haitians, or whatever the next viral argument is about.

Lots of debate about Democrats and Republicans lately, but neither party is able to make meaningful impacts on this issue. Anyone in office who responded the way that is required would get voted out immediately because an effective response would require an entirely new system of how we exist on this planet, and the majority of people aren't willing to get behind that, especially when they don't understand the problem.

Whether it's morally right or not, peace is still my goal. For myself, because it's all I have control over. Peace with the wars, peace with the extreme weather, peace with politics. I'm lucky though to not be physically affected by those things. I imagine as the effects of everything continue and become more widespread, we'll all look back on the current times, that may seem chaotic to us now, as "back when it was peaceful."

The status of NATO, or who uses what bathroom, probably goes to the back of your mind when your house is floating down the road, or your road is floating down the hill, or your hill is floating away.

+1 Well said Dan. Love your name. You can call me big Dan. 

Wow!  One more thing we have in common. 

[Paddy]

It just shows how West-centered the whole internet is that when peace or war comes up everybody on these threads talks about Ukraine and Israel. No mentions of the Ethiopian civil war, no mention of the biggest humanitarian disaster of the last decades (and civil war) in the Sudan, no mention of Baluchistan (Pakistan), or the Myanmar war, or China vs India, Chinese ships invading every morsel of the South China Sea, no mention of Haiti, the Rwandan army invading and fighting at least 10 armed groups in Congo and so on and on and on.

To be fair, the Ukraine conflict is pre-eminent in terms of the recent death toll, and is the only one that looks at risk of going nuclear.  And I for one have talked about the Sudan a bit.

[zenith]

The status of NATO, or who uses what bathroom, probably goes to the back of your mind when your house is floating down the road, or your road is floating down the hill, or your hill is floating away.

too bad you can't see it's all interconnected, there's cause and effect. climate change is the effect.

climate change won't be on your mind when the nukes start flying.

[zenith]

It just shows how West-centered the whole internet is that when peace or war comes up everybody on these threads talks about Ukraine and Israel. No mentions of the Ethiopian civil war, no mention of the biggest humanitarian disaster of the last decades (and civil war) in the Sudan, no mention of Baluchistan (Pakistan), or the Myanmar war, or China vs India, Chinese ships invading every morsel of the South China Sea, no mention of Haiti, the Rwandan army invading and fighting at least 10 armed groups in Congo and so on and on and on.

it shows how western-centric some people are on the internet that they can say china is invading the south china sea unironically but say nothing about the global hegemon starting a potential nuclear war.

[DanLittle]

too bad you can't see it's all interconnected, there's cause and effect. climate change is the effect.

climate change won't be on your mind when the nukes start flying.

Maybe I can see it's interconnected. Too bad you have the need to respond with a put down.

I don't know about that last part, it may be dark but would less people and some nuclear winter be a positive for a planet that risks runaway warming?

[zenith]

too bad you can't see it's all interconnected, there's cause and effect. climate change is the effect.

climate change won't be on your mind when the nukes start flying.

Maybe I can see it's interconnected. Too bad you have the need to respond with a put down.

I don't know about that last part, it may be dark but would less people and some nuclear winter be a positive for a planet that risks runaway warming?

if people could see how it was interconnected they'd understand how ironic it is that they side with/excuse the global hegemon in the wars they're starting for resources, wealth, power and control. the first and foremost resource to be desired is oil/energy, then people here, after running cover/obfuscating/deflecting, want to talk about climate change like it's a separate but primary issue. the real put down is the rejection of logic, facts and what could be common understanding in favour of censorship and children's stories told by the powerful predators.

there should be millions of people in the streets in every capital around the globe but their brains have been rendered useless by overwhelming propaganda and distractions.

russia just hit the industrial area of dnipro city in ukraine with 6 ICBMs that had either conventional warheads or just the fuel that exploded. that's the first time in history ICBMs have been used in a war. the russians just sent a message.

[DanLittle]

if people could see how it was interconnected they'd understand how ironic it is that they side with/excuse the global hegemon in the wars they're starting for resources, wealth, power and control. the first and foremost resource to be desired is oil/energy, then people here, after running cover/obfuscating/deflecting, want to talk about climate change like it's a separate but primary issue. the real put down is the rejection of logic, facts and what could be common understanding in favour of censorship and children's stories told by the powerful predators.

there should be millions of people in the streets in every capital around the globe but their brains have been rendered useless by overwhelming propaganda and distractions.

This all I absolutely agree with, especially that second part. I don't mean to excuse the global hegemon, I just can't do much about the situation, so I try not to let it get to me. Which I know is a luxury of being removed, for now, from the effects of it.

[zenith]

This all I absolutely agree with, especially that second part. I don't mean to excuse the global hegemon, I just can't do much about the situation, so I try not to let it get to me. Which I know is a luxury of being removed, for now, from the effects of it.

we, in the west, have benefitted from it as that's how our consumer culture operates. people here simply want to continue the deranged set of living arrangements on this spaceship but they want new consumer products that are "green" so they can feel good. they also unironically want to go to mars, as though that effort isn't the biggest waste of resources we could dream up.

but climate change is the primary problem.

[The Walrus]

This all I absolutely agree with, especially that second part. I don't mean to excuse the global hegemon, I just can't do much about the situation, so I try not to let it get to me. Which I know is a luxury of being removed, for now, from the effects of it.

we, in the west, have benefitted from it as that's how our consumer culture operates. people here simply want to continue the deranged set of living arrangements on this spaceship but they want new consumer products that are "green" so they can feel good. they also unironically want to go to mars, as though that effort isn't the biggest waste of resources we could dream up.

but climate change is the primary problem.

No, climate change is the result of the problem.

[El Cid]

It just shows how West-centered the whole internet is that when peace or war comes up everybody on these threads talks about Ukraine and Israel. No mentions of the Ethiopian civil war, no mention of the biggest humanitarian disaster of the last decades (and civil war) in the Sudan, no mention of Baluchistan (Pakistan), or the Myanmar war, or China vs India, Chinese ships invading every morsel of the South China Sea, no mention of Haiti, the Rwandan army invading and fighting at least 10 armed groups in Congo and so on and on and on.

it shows how western-centric some people are on the internet that they can say china is invading the south china sea unironically but say nothing about the global hegemon starting a potential nuclear war.

I can see the Chinese building on every small atoll bases but I can't see the US firing nuclear weapons. You are spreading lies again as usual.

Besides, my comment was abolutely not about that. I wonder why you jump and rush to defend Russia and China every time someone says anything bad about them. Actually I do not wonder.

[gerontocrat]

I can see the Chinese building on every small atoll bases but I can't see the US firing nuclear weapons.

China regards energy security as an extremely high priority, probably above that of reducing CO2 emissions. China is coal rich, with modest gas reserves and minimal crude reserves.

China had a deal with the Philippines (and Vietnam?) for joint exploitation of the large oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. But it became obvious that China wanted total control. So the deal is sort of dead and China's actions seem to be to take control of the South China Sea by other means. The military needs guaranteed access to fuel to operate, and in the event of military action (e.g. against Taiwan) the US and others will likely blockade fuel imprts by sea. Mind you, if Taiwan wasn't the key player for the West in Chip production, perhaps Taiwan's position would be far more dodgy.

Given these low oil and gas reserves, the push for renewable energy (wind, solar, nuclear) and the transition from ICEVs to BEVs can be seen as more about energy security than climate change. Perhaps that is why China is resisting "the transition away from fossil fuels" at COP29.
_____________________________________________________
ps: Once groups of humans find themselves competing for resources, especially control over territory, conflict seems inevitable.

In general terms, if as seems likely, humankind is consumimg more resources than the earth can provide, then perhaps one can assume that the probability of conflicts is increasing.
___________________________________________________________________
pps: Chamberlain Declares “Peace for Our Time”
On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain received a rowdy homecoming after signing a peace pact with Nazi Germany. That didn't last long.

[zenith]

china doesn't want the americans threatening to choke off the critical straits in the south china sea, their trade routes. china also gets it's largest percentage of oil from iran, they have plans for an overland trade route through iran too.

the americans time in the sun has come and is setting. they're threatening to end the world on three fronts. every empire in the history of the world has ended at some point. power has shifted to the east, if the americans don't recognize this reality and adjust their behaviour we're all dead.

narcissists and psychopaths though...

John Prine That's How Every Empire Falls

[etienne]

Zenith,  this is not a thread about the collapse of America,  about the rise of another hegemonist, but about how to walk towards peace.
Maybe frugality is as important for peace as for climate change, so that what's left can be shared with more people.
It might be more important to avoid the nukes than the storms  and the droughts. We can't handle both together and regarding climate change we have no choice, we can't avoid it.
Individually,  we can't achieve anything,  so the first step is to stop saying all around that war might be justified, needed or even righteous.
A second step could be to buy local and fair trade, to avoid financing big businesses with international interests.

[zenith]

Individually,  we can't achieve anything,  so the first step is to stop saying all around that war might be justified, needed or even righteous.

i'm posting about the reality of the system we all live in and how it works but you all want to reject that for fairy tales and and fantasies. if you want to change things talk to the narcissists and psychopaths that run this show and have infected your brain. i'm not saying war is justified, talk to a mirror.

[etienne]

Individually,  we can't achieve anything,  so the first step is to stop saying all around that war might be justified, needed or even righteous.

i'm posting about the reality of the system we all live in and how it works but you all want to reject that for fairy tales and and fantasies. if you want to change things talk to the narcissists and psychopaths that run this show and have infected your brain. i'm not saying war is justified, talk to a mirror.

It is also a reality that we should avoid the nukes and prioritize climate change.  Just be realistic, think at the carbon footprint of a war, even without nukes, like in Gaza.
Added : my reality is not more biased than yours.
Added : if peace would be better explained, people might refuse to serve the psychopaths of both sides.

[zenith]

i've said many times that everyone here should be against the wars , if for no other reason than they're terrible for climate change but people here prefer a manichean reality sold to them by their predatory overlords and they justify everything through propaganda.
 
i honestly couldn't care less about climate change at this point, this place has driven the final nail in the coffin for me. what a bunch of scumbags. we deserve everything coming our way.

[zenith]

we'll wind up wiping ourselves out through nuclear war, maybe today or tomorrow - who knows, but at least it was the democrats that were in control. you're complete jokes.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

[etienne]

Don't know who is in control,  seems to me that the situation is out of control, at least on the western side. I feel that right  now there is more panic than control.

[DanLittle]

Individually,  we can't achieve anything,  so the first step is to stop saying all around that war might be justified, needed or even righteous.

I don't think the wars happening today are any of those things. I think some of the wars in the past may have been. WWII being the perfect example of when peace was not the right choice and violence against Nazi Germany was righteous.

I think the peaceful change you want to see where everyone comes together and focuses on the climate would require a nonviolent revolution based on the way the world's governments currently operate. When that fails to happen, would revolutionary wars be justified, needed or righteous? I don't know.

Zenith, we may end up doing just that, unless it happens in the next few months, it won't be Democrats running the show.

 Would that really be bad for climate change though seeing as how we're causing it? (I'm not saying nuclear war is needed, justified or righteous.) Logically though, if humanity is destroying the planet, and that destroys humanity, wouldn't that help climate change? Again, I don't know.

[etienne]

If panic becomes desperate, things can become very dangerous.

Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies. The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says "Love your enemies," he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies or else? The chain reaction of evil-hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

That's from Martin Luther King Jr.

[DanLittle]

Ironically enough, it was the violent riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr that led to the passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1968.

[etienne]

Ironically enough, it was the violent riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr that led to the passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Well, from the assassination on April 4th to the signature on April 11th is a very short time. If there hadn't been the non violent opposition before the riots, there wouldn't have been the Civil Rights Act as a result.

Added: non violence works very well, but won't be promoted by the establishment because it is a strength you can't manipulate and control for personal benefits.

[The Walrus]

Ironically enough, it was the violent riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr that led to the passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1968.

You do realize that the civil rights act of 1968 dealt with Indian tribes within the U.S.?

[Freegrass]

There have been no riots or violence yet for the climate, and nothing is changing...

[gerontocrat]

There have been no riots or violence yet for the climate, and nothing is changing...

Some countries, e.g. the UK, have passed laws to suppress protest of any kind. Climate activists have been imprisoned for what a few years ago was considered legitimate protest.

[DanLittle]

Ironically enough, it was the violent riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr that led to the passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1968.

You do realize that the civil rights act of 1968 dealt with Indian tribes within the U.S.?

Titles II through VII make up the Indian Civil Rights Act with VIII and IX being the Fair Housing Act. Then there's X which makes it a felony to travel across state lines to riot.

etienne-I agree this would not have had the same impact without the peaceful legacy and philosophy of MLK, but ultimately the riots were a catalyst for getting his work on fair housing written into law.

[Richard Rathbone]

There have been no riots or violence yet for the climate, and nothing is changing...

Some countries, e.g. the UK, have passed laws to suppress protest of any kind. Climate activists have been imprisoned for what a few years ago was considered legitimate protest.

And not for short terms either. If the police choose to mess up policing your protest, you can be put away for 5 years.

[etienne]

Non violence is much more about economic Boycott than about protests. It takes some time but the impact can be devastating.
But it requires coherence, if you Boycott the Russian oil without reducing your consumption,  you just shift markets,  and the only impact is logistics.

Added : it could be that protests in a non violent fight are more important as team building experience for the organization than as proof of strength toward the other side. Of course both aspects are important.

[Neven]

Isn't it clear that the first step to peace is for the people of each nation to get their warmongers under control, instead of focussing on those of other nations? This goes for Americans most of all, given the fact that the foreign policy of their governments, always bi-partisan, is entirely to the benefit of Wall Street and the MIC.

People don't want to discuss this on the war thread, even if it's the most obvious thing in the world. It boggles my mind.

That's from Martin Luther King Jr.

That appeasing SOB wouldn't be talking like that if he knew Putin. 

[etienne]

Neven, I don't get why this would be more for one side than for the other. In any conflicts, you have warmongers on both sides.

Here a quote from Gandhi:https://www.mkgandhi.org/mynonviolence/chap46.php

I appeal for cessation of hostilities, not because you are too exhausted to fight, but because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. You will never kill it by its indifferent adoption. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours arc not as thorough as the Germans. If that be so, yours will soon acquire the same thoroughness as theirs, if not much greater. On no other condition can you win the war. In other 'words, you will have to be more ruthless than the Nazis. No cause, however just, can warrant the indiscriminate slaughter that is going on minute by minute. I suggest that a cause that demands the inhumanities that are being perpetrated today cannot be called just.

Well, I also have to remind you that Gandhi preferred violence than resignation.

You see the Nazis in Ukraine, so this text nowadays would be for the Russians. I see Fascism in Russia, so it would also be for Ukraine. I'm pretty sure that non violence would have worked well in the traffic jams of armored vehicle that were at the beginning of the war, but history can't be changed.

If non violence was thought in school, Russia could have invaded Ukraine, but would not have been able to control it, so they would have had the choice between a Gaza type massacre or to leave. The war would be over and I guess that less people would have died. I have a dream... said Martin Luther King Jr. Don't know what SOB means, I didn't find anything making sense when I Googled it.

Added : we just can't afford to destroy so much agricultural land, so much nature... climate change is our main problem, not the size of the NATO, Israel, China, Korea, Russia.... lets keep our borders like they are, wars need to stop so that we can take care of more important things.

[Neven]

Neven, I don't get why this would be more for one side than for the other. In any conflicts, you have warmongers on both sides.

To get to peace, do you focus on your own warmongers, or do you focus on (the warmongers of) the other side? What is it that your warmongers want you to do?

[etienne]

Neven, I don't get why this would be more for one side than for the other. In any conflicts, you have warmongers on both sides.

To get to peace, do you focus on your own warmongers, or do you focus on (the warmongers of) the other side? What is it that your warmongers want you to do?

I only focus on my side.
What could I do regarding the other side ? Just blah blah blah.

[etienne]

The Blah Blah Blah video was once shared by Greta Thunberg. Somehow, it feels like the establishment is not more motivated by peace than by climate change.

I hope our ASIF members from the other side also understand that they have to focus on their warmongers.

What I don't get is why people like you or Zenith seem to find the warmongers of the other side as acceptable.

[Neven]

What I don't get is why people like you or Zenith seem to find the warmongers of the other side as acceptable.

So, when I say that to get to peace I must focus on the warmongers on my side, this automatically means that I find the warmongers on the other side acceptable? That you keep jumping to this conclusion says more about you than about me.

Do you really believe that to get to peace you have to focus on the warmongers on your side, or do you secretly believe that the warmongers of the other side need to be eliminated first?

And another question: Who are the warmongers on your side? Who are the people that are causing war? And why?

[etienne]

What I don't get is why people like you or Zenith seem to find the warmongers of the other side as acceptable.

So, when I say that to get to peace I must focus on the warmongers on my side, this automatically means that I find the warmongers on the other side acceptable? That you keep jumping to this conclusion says more about you than about me.

Do you really believe that to get to peace you have to focus on the warmongers on your side, or do you secretly believe that the warmongers of the other side need to be eliminated first?

And another question: Who are the warmongers on your side? Who are the people that are causing war? And why?

I don't believe that anybody has to be eliminated, I just think that people should see that our reality is that we can't afford a war, that war is awful and that there are better ways to solve problems.
Furthermore I don't believe that eliminating Putin or Biden would bring peace.
The government in Luxembourg is right now a little bit confused, one day with Orban, the next one with the USA... It's quite complicated because some support one side, others the other side, just like here on the forum, and few really want peace.

Added : I have a problem to boycott the warmongers because it is mostly companies that I already boycott for other reasons or companies which services don't interest me. I just receive e recommendation to  boycott Netflix because they erased the Palestinian movies they had available, but I never gave a cent to Netflix, just watched once a movie at my brother in law's home.

[Neven]

I don't believe that anybody has to be eliminated, I just think that people should see that our reality is that we can't afford a war, that war is awful and that there are better ways to solve problems.

And then people will say to you: but we must eliminate the warmongers on the other side first. Or perhaps even the entire other side if they refuse to do what we tell them is best for them.

So, they want to focus on the warmongers of the other side.

But you say - I think - that you don't want to do that, because that is not the way to get to peace. You agree- I think - that it is better to focus on the warmongers on our side, and I'm not talking about eliminating in a literal sense. What I mean, of course, is that they no longer have the power to start or get involved with wars on our behalf.

So, I return to my second question:

Who are the warmongers on our side? Who are the people on our side that are causing war? And why?

[etienne]

Sorry Neven, I don't know what you mean with my side. I don't have a side in the Ukrainian conflict. Who are the warmongers on your side ? Is that easier for you to answer ?
Warmongers are on the other sides, in a war, there are always two sides with warmongers, but my side goes on the street every week to ask peace in Palestine, for a multi-religions solution for that part of the world.
In the Ukrainian conflict, I believe that it is a decolonization war, but I don't believe that they used the right method to get free. You can't get freedom by killing. WWII ended Nazism, but it took much longer to have peace in Europe. Korea still doesn't have peace.

[Neven]

Sorry Neven, I don't know what you mean with my side. I don't have a side in the Ukrainian conflict. Who are the warmongers on your side ? Is that easier for you to answer ?

Well, we both live in the West, so my warmongers are your warmongers. What they're doing, they're doing it in our name. It's nice that you think you can absolve yourself by going to demonstrations, but all those things continue to be done in your name.

People in Ukraine, Palestine and all those places El Cid mentioned, are for the most part suffering because of our warmongers. Our warmongers and the warmongers on the other side are actually colleagues who probably respect each other more than the nations that they allegedly represent.

Do you have any idea who our warmongers in the West could be? And why they're doing it?

Maybe if we would determine that, we could develop some theoretical ideas on what should be done about that. Those ideas probably wouldn't work in practice, but we could at least say we worked out the theory, yes?

[etienne]

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that Putin makes war in the name of the Russian People. He does it in the name of a Apparatus that he controls probably almost alone.
Same thing in Israel, Netanyahu doesn't make war in Gaza and Lebanon in the name of the Israeli people, but in the name of an Ideology that has a lot of support among the Israeli people.
Germany also doesn't give weapons to Ukraine in the name of all the German people, but in the name of a system that has a lot of support in Germany, an generally speaking in Europe.
The way you talk tend to escalate conflict by putting people against one another.
I like the video that Wildfit posted.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1562.msg415288.html#msg415288
The warmongers are the stupids and the bandits. Unfortunately these two categories seems over-represented in politics and business.
So what should be done is for example :

• avoiding big business and buy local or fair trade, go to the local bookstore.
• don't talk positively of wars
• don't accept people saying that the others (arabs, refugees, latinos...) are the problem, each human has rights, even the ones that didn't enter legally in your country
• support anti big business events like buy nothing day
• reduce fossil fuels dependency, it's one of the main incomes of warmongers
• don't consume drugs, same problem than with fossil fuels, but with additional problems because most of the drugs are illegal
• realize that our comfort is only possible through exploitation of other people and of the planet, check your country's earth overshoot day
• ...

Added : of course, you also have stupid people and bandit for example in local organic businesses. Life is complicated. Try to live the way you want the world to be and don't be frustrated when the others don't, you can't change them, just don't cooperate with them. They can only change themselves when they see people behaving better and realize that always more people turn away because they don't.

Added 2 : in the old Testament, there is often written that people will be punished for the sins of their kings. It is unfortunately what happens when a government gets crazy. It is still valid today. It's why it is very important to have a healthy democratic life to keep the government on track, the way the punishment works out is always a surprise.