Waging peace, not war

[Kasia]

Hi everyone,
I have been reading this forum for awhile now and though I have lots to say about most of the topics, one of the threads I was reading today disturbed me deeply and finally I can't not say something. The thread was "Banning of the word French". The discussion about banning everything French-related turned into a kind of free-for-all about the UN and its role in today's world. I thought a lot of you would be interested in an email I received today about this very topic. I found the idea - that the world is waging peace and not war, thus ushering us into a new global era - to be interesting academically-speaking, but also very moving on another level. If you have some time (sorry it's so long!), I encourage you to read it. Not everyone will agree, I am sure, but at least it will offer you a new perspective. And when it's all said and done, everything you do in life and everything you believe to be true for yourself is about perspective. ;)

The email is as follows:

Please read this man's extraordinary visionary view of what are world is going through today. It explains the celebratory energy that has been present at the anti-war demonstrations. We are living during a special time in history, do we know it?

> Dr. Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general
> of the United Nations, now Chancellor emeritus of the
> University of Peace in Costa Rica was one of the
> people who witnessed the founding of the U.N. and has
> worked in support of or inside the U.N. ever since.
> Recently he was in San Francisco to be honored for his
> service to the world through the U.N. and through his
> writings and teachings for peace. At age eighty, Dr.
> Muller surprised, even stunned, many in the audience
> that day with his most positive assessment of where
> the world stands now regarding war and peace.
>
> I was there at the gathering and I myself was stunned
> by his remarks. What he said turned my head around and
> offered me a new way to see what is going on in the
> world. My synopsis of his remarks is below:
>
> "I'm so honored to be here," he said. "I'm so honored
> to be alive at such a miraculous time in history. I'm
> so moved by what's going on in our world today."

> Dr. Muller proceeded to say, "Never before in the
> history of the world has there been a global, visible,
> public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about
> the very legitimacy of war".
>
> The whole world is in now having this critical and
> historic dialogue--listening to all kinds of points of
> view and positions about going to war or not going to
> war. In a huge global public conversation the world is
> asking-"Is war legitimate? Is it illegitimate? Is
> there enough evidence to warrant an attack? Is there
> not enough evidence to warrant an attack? What will be
> the consequences? The costs? What will happen after a
> war? How will this set off other conflicts? What might
> be peaceful alternatives? What kind of negotiations
> are we not thinking of? What are the real intentions
> for declaring war?"
>
> All of this, he noted, is taking place in the context
> of the United Nations Security Council, the body that
> was established in 1949 for exactly this purpose. He
> pointed out that it has taken us more than fifty years
> to realize that function, the real function of the
> U.N. And at this moment in history-- the United
> Nations is at the center of the stage. It is the place
> where these conversations are happening, and it has
> become in these last months and weeks, the most
> powerful governing body on earth, the most powerful
> container for the world's effort to wage peace rather
> than war. Dr. Muller was almost in tears in
> recognition of the fulfillment of this dream.
>
> "We are not at war," he kept saying. We, the world
> community, are WAGING peace. It is difficult, hard
> work. It is constant and we must not let up. It is
> working and it is an historic milestone of immense
> proportions. It has never happened before-never in
> human history-and it is happening now-every day every
> hour-waging peace through a global conversation. He
> pointed out that the conversation questioning the
> validity of going to war has gone on for hours, days,
> weeks, months and now more than a year, and it may go
> on and on. "We're in peacetime," he kept saying. "Yes,
> troops are being moved. Yes, warheads are being lined
> up. Yes, the aggressor is angry and upset and spending
> a billion dollars a day preparing to attack. But not
> one shot has been fired. Not one life has been lost.
> There is no war. It's all a conversation."
>
> It is tense, it is tough, it is challenging, AND we
> are in the most significant and potent global
> conversation and public dialogue in the history of the
> world. This has not happened before on this scale ever
> before-not before WWI or WWII, not before Vietnam or
> Korea, this is new and it is a stunning new era of
> Global listening, speaking, and responsibility.
>
> In the process, he pointed out, new alliances are
> being formed. Russia and China on the same side of an
> issue is an unprecedented outcome. France and Germany
> working together to wake up the world to a new way of
> seeing the situation. The largest peace demonstrations
> in the history of the world are taking place--and we
> are not at war! Most peace demonstrations in recent
> history took place when a war was already waging,
> sometimes for years, as in the case of Vietnam.
>
> "So this," he said, "is a miracle. This is what
> "waging peace " looks like."
>
> No matter what happens, history will record that this
> is a new era, and that the 21st century has been
> initiated with the world in a global dialogue looking
> deeply, profoundly and responsibly as a global
> community at the legitimacy of the actions of a nation
> that is desperate to go to war.
>
> Through these global peace-waging efforts, the leaders
> of that nation are being engaged in further dialogue,
> forcing them to rethink, and allowing all nations to
> participate in the serious and horrific decision to go
> to war or not.
>
> Dr. Muller also made reference to a recent New York
> Times article that pointed out that up until now there
> has been just one superpower-the United States, and
> that that has created a kind of blindness in the
> vision of the U.S. But now, Dr. Muller asserts, there
> are two superpowers: the United States and the
> merging, surging voice of the people of the world.
>
> All around the world, people are waging peace. To
> Robert Muller, one of the great advocates of the
> United Nations, it is nothing short of a miracle and
> it is working.

[mo1]

Um yeah...honestly this supposedly inspiring email you have posted basically is just more anti american bullshit when you get down to it!

>But now, Dr. Muller asserts, there are two superpowers: the United States and the merging, surging voice of the people of the world.>>

Cmon this guy is painting the picture that everyone in the world is for peace except the U.S.

>Yes, the aggressor is angry and upset and spending
> a billion dollars a day preparing to attack. But not
> one shot has been fired. Not one life has been lost.
> There is no war. It's all a conversation."

The aggressor?? Not one life has been lost?? What about the thousands of Kurds who were exterminated by Saddam....or the 3000 innocent American lives taken on Sept 11th.....did America have anything to do with these events? And we are the aggressor? And you find this inspiring?

>the 21st century has been
> initiated with the world in a global dialogue looking
> deeply, profoundly and responsibly as a global
> community at the legitimacy of the actions of a nation
> that is desperate to go to war.

Desperate to go to war?? GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Do you really believe we want to go to war...that we want to sacrifice the possibility of losing loved ones b/c we are so desperate to see war!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH this pisses me off so much. How can anyone who calls themselves an American believe this junk? Do you truly believe that the leaders of our country are desperate to go to war?? If that was the case we would have been in Iraq already six months ago.

Everyone has a right to an opinion i guess....and to believing this crap. Obviously i respectfully disagree with this guy's opinion. And i really hope others do to and see it for what it is.....anti americanism to the fullest degree!!

[TankgirlyC]

I agree MO1.
Its just crap. We are in this terrible recession and a war isnt going to help that.
Also....if we are the aggressor..why do we give so much $ to other countries to try and help them? Why did we sent troops to SOmalia....I mean really I think we try and help more than anything.

As for the whole Iraq thing...Sadam is killing innocent people...he has them all under his control--he wont the election by 99% of the vote FOR him....I dont think these people are living well when they cant speak out againt Sadam if they do they are killed....
the war would be to HELP these people!

THat E mail was propaganda and just plain crap.

[LittleLady23]

I agree with Tank and mo1..

WELL SAID!

[TankgirlyC]

I think we should circulate some E mail with real info on it not this fluffy granola crap.

[Kasia]

You guys all totally missed the point of the email. Just to remind you, I never said that I agreed with this guy on all his points either, but that it was an interesting perspective. And that's what you guys missed - the perspective. The point is not to pull out quotes, though I agree with you wholeheartedly, mo1, that yes, already MANY lives have been lost, and true, the entire nation is not "desperate" to go to war. But this is not the reason I posted this "fluffy crap". The point is that the entire world is involved in a DIALOGUE about war, about whether or not it is legitimate in itself. This email is just applauding all the people out there advocating peace. It is not "anti-american" propoganda.

As for my own opinion on this whole thing, I must say that the idea that ANY country (not just the US) donates money/peacekeepers/whatever to other countries just to be "nice" and try to "help them" is just plain naive. Same with marching in and toppling a government - do you really think the Bush administration is doing this to help the "poor people"? Please. Even if this was a perfect world and that was the main motive, then where does it stop? What kind of precedents does it create? Does any nation's invasion of another nation on the grounds that it doesn't "like" how it runs itself become justified?

[TankgirlyC]

We dont go in JUST to be nice....we go in becase we see mal-treatment of other human beaings.

Tell me...would you want other countries to debate about helping us if our goverment say turned into what IRaq is going through? Or would you want a country to step up and help??

Yes its another perspecive (your E mail) BUT with all the protesting...if you listen to some of these people they dont know WHAT the war is about. THey listen to the media and people talk about how Bush is just wanting to have his own war (which I do partially agree with) but this is no Vietnam. Vietnam had so much protest becuse it didnt involve us at all.
Iraq involves us because of oil, humanity and the fact that we fought there before and gave Sadam 12 YEARS to disarm..he didnt...so guess what...time to pay!

Dont think Im some war supporting freak....but in this case...Im fed up giving a crazy man chances to do things so he has more time to fool us and pretend... TIME IS UP

[mo1]

Tankygirl-

LOL. I agree with you on the point that Saddam has had enough time. I find it humorous(in a contradictory sort of way) though your take on the situation. That the means under which this possible war is being conducted may not be fully valid ("Bush just wanting his own war") but the ends justify it. LOL. I cant say i agree with this idea about the President. Everyone keeps saying he is making it personal........well he is our president and i would think that any threat to our country would be personal to him wouldnt you? If he knows of a growing threat to Americans dont you think he would take that personally? It would scary if he didnt!

Kasia-

I agree that it is good to have dialogue about the possiblity of war and its legitimacy. If there wasnt one than we would all by guilty of being war-mongering people. My fault with the article you presented here is that it does not represent the situation in a true light. You cannot just claim that a country is desperate for war when in fact its leaders and its citizens have been agonizing/debating over the situation for many months and perhaps years in the case of the administration. So for that reason i take offense at it and will label it as what it is!

As for your other comment about aid, money etc given to other countries being not solely for humanitarian reasons...well your right. NO action is done without self interest in mind....we give money and aid in the hopes that by bettering other nations we too will benefit from a cleaner, safer, healthier, more prosperous world. The aids package being promised to Africa to fight the raging epidemic of AIDS is one clear example. A more educated and healthier African population helps us and the world by slowing the spread of the disease. Does that make it any less noble an effort because it is couched in self interest????

You point out the slippery slope involved with just going in and toppling a govt one does not approve of. International law mandates that such cannot be done unless as a act of self-defense or certain other scenarios (that would be too long to mention however terrorism is one). I agree that it is not a precedent to set lightly........however i think it is clear that in this case it is justified by the menace this regime presents to the safety of the world population. It is not all about the oil, or all about the plight of the Iraqi people, or even solely about rooting out terrorism. Its about ultimately making that region a more secure and stable place for the world community.

As much as it sucks that we are so reliant on oil from that region think about the devastating effects it could cause worldwide if that region was to become enflamed in violence over the Israeli/Palestine affair. Or if we just sat back and allowed Hussein and others to produce WMD's to be sold for millions of dollars on the black market to extremists of all kinds. Or to let Hussein and other dictators quietly go on with the inhumane oppression of their own people!

Sure "wage peace" all you want. But it will not stop the aims of irrational people from doing irrational and destructive things!

[Kasia]

There is mal-treatment of human beings going on all over the world, not just in Iraq.

And once again, no one here is trying to be anti-American!!!!! Why is no one addressing the REAL ISSUE here, which is how amazing it is that the entire world is engaged in conversation about war and its legitimacy and consequences. Countries that have been enemies for years are now forming alliances. Crimes against humanity are being deplored and sub-plots involving oil as the universal currency are being investigated.

Do you not think it would be interesting to talk about these things instead of trading good arguments in the defense of America, which is what this thread is turning into? I guess not.

[Kasia]

Sorry mo, I didn't get a chance to read your post before mine went up. You make a lot of good points, and I want to say I respect you for being realistic. I guess what infuriates me is the naivete of so many people out there these days who have been wooed by the romanticism/heroicism of it all (fault of the media). And the other thing that angers me is that if the Bush admin. really has evidence that Hussein is still hiding WMD, don't we have a right to that information? So far all we have are Blix's reports that show no indication that attack is justified. Bush keeps insisting Hussein is orchestrating a cover-up and is "fooling us" and people have grabbed that idea and ran with it without really knowing what they are talking about. There are many intelligent minds on the case and I find it hard to imagine they are missing something. Besides, what would Hussein gain from doing it anyway? He is completely outnumbered and knows it, and would only be fighting a war out of pride. Did anyone see the Dan Rathers interview of Sadaam Hussein??

[TankgirlyC]

They cant release some of the info because it would get back to Sadam...we do have a right to the info...but also some things need to be not exposed.

As for the whole pride thing...yeah Sadam will greatly fight a war based on pride...he wont be NEAR combat...his people will be and they will be in the front lines and he wont care!

Sadam is fooling us. He wont let his scientists be interviewd unless the room is bugged, he wont let people talk or they will be killed, he keeps hiding the weapons just as UN inspectors are pulling up. They havent searched ALL of Sadams hiding places...just the ones he has LET us into.....you think he is going to let us into his underground bunkers? Hmmm Id go with no.

I saw the WHOLE interview with Dan and Sadam...didnt you notice how Sadam didnt answer a damn thing? All he did was talk in circles.

[Kasia]

Tank,
I thought it was pretty cute that you said "he keeps hiding the weapons just as UN inspectors are pulling up". I am guessing you don't mean this literally. I had a vision of Sadaamites peeking out the window, spotting the blue trucks and scrambling to hide enormous missiles in the closet or under the bed.

You are right that Sadaam won't care how many of his people are killed and this is a travesty. It also tells us, however, that our bombing his country probably won't deter him much - it's not like he'd try to compromise in order to save his people... his oil, maybe, but not his people.

The Dan Rathers interview was interesting and yes Sadaam talked in circles but you also have to take into account his culture. The style of languages of Middle Eastern countries is that the use of imagery, metaphors and basically flowery language is prevalent and expected. This is just the way people talk.

Perhaps he did evade a few direct questions but so would any leader. I also think he was talking pretty straightforwardly when he suggested a one-on-one dialogue with Bush. Unfortunately we all know Bush's linguistic limitations so it comes as no surprise that the request (if it was serious, as it seemed to be) was refused by Bush and the people who whisper in his ear.

[M4A1]

A very good possibility for reason that the administration hasn't gone public is that in involves human assets and disclosing that information might cost these people's lives.

Unlike the situation in North Korea, where Jung Kim has solidarity from top to bottom in his command structure. In Iraq, many people resent Saddam-- including some of his officers. It is very possible that one of his close aide or generals has been sending information over to us. But should we disclose that exact information, Saddam would know how and who has access to these type of information.

As for your e-mail, I have to also disagree on the part where he says:

> community at the legitimacy of the actions of a nation
> that is desperate to go to war.

and

> are two superpowers: the United States and the
> merging, surging voice of the people of the world.


Both of these statements are wrong. Because for one, I'm an American and my opinion on this issue is a whole lot different from that of mo1's, LittleLady's or of other Americans who agrees completely with the administration. So to generalize that "a nation is desperate to go to war" is totally ridiculous. I ain't desperate to see people die. I don't think a matter of asking someone to give up the gun that he hid should cost the lives of any policeman or any person who's related to that man. There are congressman and senators who are speaking out to Bush's hardline stance. So making claims like all Americans believe the same is quite retarded to come from someone who is a Doctor.

That second statement, on surging voice of the people of the world vs. USA is dumb as well. Do Canadians agree with North Korea? or China's stance on Tibet? or Russia on Chechnya? I think not. So what is this surging voice of the world? You aren't as one. And if any other country were put in our position, they would not be so kind to ask for UN's approval or even consider it.

Just something that you might want to think about.

[TankgirlyC]

First...the UN vehicles are not blue....they are white with UN printed on the hood.
Second I am serious about them hiding incrimidating info.They would know where the UN was going and would move the missles, weapons, chemicals and clean the place out. They just moved everything either underground or to a place that the UN was not able to inspect.

Yes Iraqies have a different use of language, but Sadam didnt even allude to an answer or some direction. He would just talk in circles.

Now about his idea for a live televised debate...what would have been done would be that Iraqie people would have gotten a filtered version that Sadam wants them to see. This is what he does when Blix releases what he has found..only good things he says about Iraq are put in the papers. I agree that Bush doesnt have the best use of the language..but the reason it was turned down was for these other reasons.
Hell even the Dan Rather interview was given to Dan Rather HOURS later. He was unable to use his own video equipment....he had to use EVERYTHING by Sadam....

Kasia ---you really need to read more and look more in depth with things.

[LittleLady23]

Lets clear up the record here..

We all know I am a "hot head". I sometimes speak before thinking. But I want you all to know for the record, I am not desperate to go to war either. As I have said before I totally back up Bush. BUT, I didn't go into detail of what that meant. I do disagree with some business choices that he has made, but when it comes to this War or anything against the U.S, thats when I totally back him up. I wouldn't want anyone else handling these War issues than him. But all in all, nobody is perfect. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, and no I do not think the president is perfect, but I think he is doing a pretty darn good job with whats been handed to him and the mess he has had to deal with just first stepping into office.

I actually see the good points you ALL have made in this board. But I do agree that the original message Kasia was talking about seemed anti-american.

I know it talks about how everyone is coming together for peace, and that is totally awesome in theory, but when you ask the average person why they are against this War they say "Cause Bush is making it personal and not about the American well being"!!! Well, yeah he is making it personal. He is an American and he is honestly just protecting us all. If he wasn't doing anything to protect us from future harm and we were hit with another 9-11, then every single one of the protesters our there would say "screw Bush, he didn't do his job, he didn't protect America". Honestly the man can't win in either situation! I don't think the U.N is as great as some make it. Yeah it provides all the countries talking, but right now the U.N seems to just doing the "lets wait" bit. And to me thats more dangerous than anything out there.

[M4A1]

We all know I am a "hot head". I sometimes speak before thinking.

LMAO!!! :lol: You crack me up!

[Kasia]

I stand corrected on the colour of UN vehicles. My comment was more metaphorical, as in, here come the Blue. But whatever, this is so not important.

What is important, Tank, is that I am not looking for a fight here, so sorry if you took my comment about hiding weapons the wrong way. I was thanking you for bringing a little lightness to the conversation. That means I misinterpreted you, too. This is the problem with written correspondence - it's sometimes difficult to gauge tone.

I agree with you that the Iraqi people would get a "filtered version" if there was any televised debate. But what do you think we get every day we turn on the tv or read the newspapers?

Littlelady gives us a perfect example of this. She says that if you ask the average American, they will say they are against the war because "Bush is making it personal". I know he made that remark about his father, but the media outside the US, though it reported it, did not dwell on this remark.

Unless a person actively pursues information from different sources, he becomes a product of centralized media. In my own defense, I will tell you I take what the Canadian and American media gives me with a grain of salt and also seek info from abroad.

But this is, after all, a forum for free discussion, right Tank? I shouldn't have to waste other people's time defending myself against remarks like "read more and look more in depth with things". Let's not make this personal, okay?

[TankgirlyC]

I made that last comment because you easily said the UN inspection cars were blue....if you pay attention you would know what they look like...this is what leads me to believe you should look a little more around you.

You make the statement about the US media vs Iraq media. Now while the Iraq media takes out ANYTHING negative said about the country and decides what to tell its public....the US filters some but its based on what side people lean to (right or left) and its never to the extent of Iraq so really you cant comare.

I too get my news from several sources. I also take what I hear with a grain of salt and make my own conclusions. Once you learn what side your newspaper or TV news program leans to..you can see how they view their facts and interpret the information.

[Kasia]

My apologies, I didn't realize you were fluent in Arabic. Of course that's how you know without a shade of doubt what goes on in Iraqi media.

But joking aside, I commend you for your insight regarding our own media sources: "Once you learn what side your newspaper or TV news program leans to..you can see how they view their facts and interpret the information."

If only more people would do just that.

[Lady Luck]

:D

[TankgirlyC]

Sarcasm noted....am I fluent in Arabic ....no.....is my extended family? yes...
I dont need to be fluent if I Listen to enough news sources you can tell whats going on....and you are nieve to think that Sadam is telling his people ALL that is going on....he keeps the bad stuff out...and only puts in priase of Iraq.

[Lady Luck]

Here's MY 2 cents:

If the study of world empires shows anything, it is that those who are “king of the hill” don’t remain there forever. Look at the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Ottoman, Persian, Roman, and British empires. You will find that those at the pinnacle have always been toppled, and history does indeed repeat itself. One of the reasons why certain societies ascend upward or defeat another in battle is due to technological breakthroughs which gives them a unique advantage over everyone else. The type of ammunition used by the North in opposition to the South in America’s Civil War is a perfect example of why the Union won. Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolution, applies this concept to a shift in the way we view our physical world because new information or data replaces the old. He writes, “To be accepted as a paradigm a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.”

In the 20th century we saw three such historical shifts. The first took place with World War I, which was deliberately staged by the Controllers to rid Europe of its old-style rule of kings, princes, royal families and scattered sovereign nation-states. What the moneyed-elite desired was a destruction of the past power-structure, replaced by those who were groomed in the Round Table-Oxford-New World Order style government. Building upon this notion, WWII was deliberately fomented from the ashes of WWI and the League of Nations so that the United Nations could emerge as a new global power.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that WWII would “end the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed.”

In essence, then, what resulted from these two wars was a dramatic shift in the way our world was governed. Whereas a multitude of distinct nation-states existed independent of each other prior to the Great Wars, they were eventually ‘collectivized’ by global treaties and organizations. By the early 1950’s, coinciding with the creation of Cold War hostilities, the world was divided into three camps. On one side we had the United States – democratic and capitalistic, on the other was Communist Russian; while every other country was a minor player in the shadow of this bi-polar rule. During this four decade Cold War, America and the Soviet Union competed for the soul of every other third world country in terms of philosophy, governing style, business ventures and weaponry.

The third shift of the 20th century came about with the fall of Communism (symbolized by the Berlin Wall coming down) and cemented when George Bush Sr. gave his famous “New World Order” proclamation on three different occasions. When this change in political perspective took place, our world moved beyond bi-polar rule and found itself with one remaining super-power and unrivaled king of the hill – the United States of America.

The primary problems facing this nation today aren’t terrorists with 12th century mindsets or elusive weapons of mass destruction supposedly hidden in Iraq. No, the true cancer eating away at us is the collective thought of invincibility on the part of the American people. We’ve become so confident in our position that American cannot be beaten at anything (especially war) that any suggestion to the contrary seems laughable. In other words, I’m afraid to say that we now consider ourselves the end-all and be-all of everything. But as Samuel Huntington says with frightening clarity, “Societies that assume that their history has ended are usually societies whose history is about to decline.”

This quote is reminiscent of one given by Arnold J. Toynbee in A Study of History where he described the English middle class in 1897 and their inflated notions of “Pax Brittanica” – “As they saw it, history for them was over, and they had every reason to congratulate themselves on the permanent state of felicity which this ending of history had conferred on them.”

But guess what. The British Empire fell, and in this vein, America is a mature society (as opposed to a lean, mean, young and hungry society), and it is in decline due to deterioration from within. When these symptoms surfaced in the past, one of two things resulted:

1) The country in question was invaded and severely beaten. If we become immersed in a world war on multiple fronts and all our troops are on foreign soil, what would prevent Russian or China from sweeping onto our shores and giving us a whooping?

2) The society rots from within. If you don’t think we’re completely rotten on the inside, take a few moments to look at how the ‘selected’ leaders of this country have absolutely sold us out to the Controllers. It’s appalling. In this sense, we’re as rotten as ancient Rome was in every conceivable way.

Plus, due to the deliberate erosion of our borders and the inception of cultural-elements contrary to what made this country great; we’re following a path leading to a less-than-optimal outcome. Or, as Samuel Huntington tell us, “History shows that no country so constituted [with a cultural core] can long endure as a coherent society. A multicivilizational United States will not be the United States; it will be the United Nations.” ... affectionately called the 'New World Order'.