http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/opinion/28tierney.html? A very interesting op-ed piece. The writer makes some excellent points, regarding reasons to be optimistic that the world of the future will be a more peaceful place to live. I think the following excerpt sums it up well: Opinions? Thoughts?
The rich have been getting richer, while the middleclass has all but disappeared... the inner cities growing, rural farms closing, work layoffs, etc etc... We are a nation of sheep = not getting any smarter.
How bout providing proof to back your claims for a change Kandahar. You are so fond of citing supposed statistical proofs for which we only have your word. I have to say, guaging by the all too typical regurgitative paradigm of non thought that passes for understanding of world events and the true underlying agendas driving them within the American public psyche, soulrebel is far more on target. Besides, putting one's faith in mere statiscal data without bothering to investigate the mehtodology used to obtain or present that data (and also whose interests such presentation serves) is further example of blind folly.
Yeah, the article said "civil war is less likely than any time since 1960". That's only 45 years ago. This may be a short term trend, but it can only stay like this so long as the status quo doesn't change. There was a thing called Pax Romana, the Roman Peace. But as the empire crumbled, strife increased, and we get the Dark Ages. I'm not so much saying we're going to repeat that, just, if things change, it could mean more war and strife. Peak oil would be such a change, even if it isn't as devestating as some think, because it will change the balance of power in the Middle East and the world in general. It also says the number of people fighting has plummeted. Well, that's because we aren't lining up soldiers and shooting at each other. Tactics and technology have changed. That doesn't mean war isn't hell anymore. I don't totally disagree or write off the writers position, he could be right. The question is, how long will it last? Is it a lull, the eye of the storm? Or is it really "the end of war"? PS: he mentioned at the end the "progress paradox." What is that?
The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1105.html sounds intresting
Forget it. I was interested in discussing the main point of the article, which is that war is on the decline. If you are going to challenge even easily-obtained statistics I have no interest in debating with you. I expected some people to say that they disagreed with the assessment that war is on the decline for the reasons the writer provided. I just didn't expect anyone to say "people are getting poorer and dumber" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. LickHERish, you are so blinded by your hatred for America that you refuse to even consider any opinion that suggests anything at all will ever get better in any part of the world. I pity you. As for the previous poster's assessments. It's true that wealth disparity is slightly growing...in the United States. It's not true that it's growing internationally (which is what we're concerned about since the subject is war), nor is it true that the middle class has "all but disappeared." And virtually every test confirms that today's students worldwide are better educated and more intelligent than their parents.
You're absolutely right that 45 years is a short-term trend in the grand scheme of things, but he also makes the following point: I agree that he does a poor job of examining the "middle-term", something in between Stone Age skeletons and the last 45 years. You're right that the balance of power could easily change things...but it doesn't look like the present-day superpower or the up-and-coming superpowers (China and India) are particularly belligerent toward one another (at least not enough to fight a war, or even to stop trading with each other). If that changes, you're right that the incidence of war could increase. It depends on where you're fighting. For America's wars or Russia's wars, that's true, but most other wars generally still involve soldiers shooting at each other. Hard to say. I'm not sure I completely agree with him either, but he does make some good points. If the current trends continue, war would probably continue to decline...but the current trends might not continue. If China and India's ascension to power continues to be peaceful, I think the world will be in pretty good shape. Fortunately neither of them has shown very many signs of imperialism or a desire to spread their form of government throughout the world. It's the idea that as people get richer, they're more shocked by the images of starving children on television because it seems so alien to them. As they get smarter, they're more shocked by the illiteracy rates in some countries. These things might not really be increasing (in fact both starvation and illiteracy are DECREASING), but it SEEMS like they're increasing because people are more appalled by them. Another point that I think the writer failed to make, regarding the world's rising income and intelligence: In poor (and illiterate) countries, many people join the army because it pays well and because they feel they have little to lose. In wealthier (and better educated) countries, even the prospect of enlisting during peace-time terrifies many people who feel they can find better opportunities elsewhere that don't involve risking their life. That won't necessarily stop the governments from fighting wars anyway, but it does increase popular resistance. There aren't really any first-world countries that still fight major wars; I think the Vietnam War was a lesson for ALL the governments of first-world countries. The people are simply not willing to stomach heavy casualties for a war with poorly-defined goals. That's just my opinion though; perhaps the public of rich, literate nations would be willing to stomach more war than I think.
Ah yes, any realisation voiced as to the quite recognisable decline both in education standards and in the economic viability of the middle class in our nation must be "hatred of the nation". Get a new tune you sad headline regurgitating non-informed mouthpiece for the status quo. The day you ever actually provide credible proofs for anything you write is the day you can even begin to claim to debate any issue or person on these boards. Hatred of my own nation, indeed. Pathetic bandwagon slogan junkie.
Which is why the public still hasn't brought the Bush admin to justice for two wars and the maintenance of a perpetual illegal occupation in a foreign nation with steadily mounting death tolls, baseless round-ups and indefinite detentions without due process of law or evidence (also illegal), and the continued dehumanisations of any who dare fight back against our illegal presence and puppet government. Oh yes, the lessons of Vietnam and the 25 years of consistent lies used to sell it to the public (as duly exposed in the Pentagon Papers) have certainly been a remembered lesson. Clear NOT as the case may be.
This is so true. The only cause I see for optimism is that the tide of public sentiment in our society swings on a pendulum. It's pretty dark right now, but maybe our children can bring us back into the light.
I truly fear for the children of our nation and what will even be left to them of our once progressive society after another generation of government mouthpiece huckster journalists like Tierney (who in fact replaced Safire, another died in the wool neocon hack) Kristof, Krauthammer, et al have lowered the standard and objectives of the Forth Estate to that of mere official propaganda platforms and rosey "see-no-evil" insulated and sanitised coffee-table reading/tv-dinner viewing. With these self-proclaimed "conservatives" (anything but) at the helm, one generation more will see our populace even more out of tune with the exploits of our criminal leaders outside our shores as well as the increasingly negative effects of that criminality on our own people. Head in the sanders must absolutely love Tierney, they already eagerly swallow the lies of his longer serving op ed counterpart David Brooks.
I'm one of the least patriotic people you'll ever find; you can burn the flag and piss on it for all I care. I'm not particularly "proud" of this country just because I was born here, but any reasonable observer can clearly see that this is hardly the worst government in the world. You can hate whatever countries you want...but your hatred is CLEARLY clouding your judgment and inhibits a rational discussion. I often wonder if, all other things being equal, you would be so hostile to every politically-neutral opinion that is optimistic about the future of the world, if we had a government that was more friendly to your personal politics. 1. The public doesn't support the war in Iraq and never has. At most, the public was wishy-washy toward the idea. 2. The amount of casualties in Iraq are nowhere close to what they were in Vietnam. If they did approach that level, I think the people would be adamantly against the war. 3. I'm done arguing with you, because all you do is make ad hominem attacks, post every problem you see with America (regardless of the subject at hand), and have never provided the slightest hint that you would change your emotionally-charged arguments in the face of reason. I'm interested in discussing the article I posted with people who actually read farther than the writer's name, and frankly my blood pressure can do without refuting your idiotic statements. But hey, if you want to keep posting on this thread to get a debate going about how nothing will ever improve in the world as long as America is at the helm (which isn't even relevant), more power to you. If anyone else wants to discuss the subject at hand instead of why America sucks, I'd still like to talk about it with you guys.
Again displaying your refusal to actually stop and think for even a moment. Our involvement in Vietnam spanned roughly 12-13 years (using 1961 as the initiation of military engagement) and our military engagement with and occupation of Iraq now 2. If you even bothered to inform yourself beyond mere op ed blather spouted by disingenuous ideologues (who do nothing to uphold the legitimate purpose of the Fourth Estate to keep the public informed and hold our leaders accountable), you would recognise that the number of casualties in Iraq at this stage far exceeds that of our Veitnam debacle and that our present foreign policy is based on just as many lies. http://www.veteransforpeace.org/US_War_Dead_111403.htm (already out of date but a good starting point) http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/ Thus your excusatory and diversionary tirade proves itself no service to our nation or the world, which you'd love to view in such rosey terms whilst high crimes and the criminals committing them at our expense laugh at the likes of you and all other easily diverted and spun sheeple. Perhaps if every attempt to get your ilk to pull their heads out of their asses and undertake their civic duties at home with our own hypocrisy and wrongdoing before pointing fingers at every other nation wasn't met, again and again by the likes of you, with idiocy of "anti-American" or "Conspiracy Theorist" (themselves ad hominem attacks) we might actually discuss matters of substance. Op ed articles are not remotely substantive and certainly not those by one whom even the Columbia Journal Review (one of our nation's foremost journalistic watchdogs) considers intellectually dishonest. http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001148.asp You may be easily taken in by the increasing number of agenda-laden hacks being sold to the public by corporate media as examples of ethical journalism but all they are is a new wave of compliant and well paid mouthpieces to lull public consciousness to sleep with fluff like the piece above. The only thing I hate, for your information, is the wanton self deception and deadening of true informed public discourse by the likes of you, PB, and the other "call it all 'liberal' bias" head in the sanders who have systematically pointed fingers at every other nation's wrongs whilst playing down our own. I and those like me recall which nation's leaders are the ones making unilateralist war based on lies, circumventing the rule of law whilst claiming to be the champions of it, evading all investigations of their criminality or contriving hand-picked whitewash committees with limited remits to rubber stamp their wrongdoing by calling it "intelligence failures", et al. Time to remove the beam from our own eye before presuming to make ANY comment on any other nation's mote. Unlike yourself, I - as an American - hold scrutiny of our own wrongs to be my first and foremost duty as it is the duty of other sovereign nations' citizenry (not ours, nor the Bush admin's nor our military's) to hold their own leaders to account. Using the primary school playground level argument of "they aren't as bad other governments" only shows how apathetic you are toward the fact that they ARE abusing their powers, repeating the lies of previous decades and conflicts and instituting police-state mechanisms both domestic and global. Their unchecked and unhindered agenda is not leading to your pie in the sky future, but rather a perpetual control/surveillance, civil-rights infringing, media compliant, fearmongering state of tyranny which will be left to the next generation and the generations that follow until there will be no choice but to take up arms and find those patriots that do called "terrorists" by the criminals in power. Get your head out of the op ed fluff and do some real research for a change and perhaps you might wake up and realise you've been sleepwalking in a pipedream schemed up by propagandists for continued profit.
True. Especially considering that that graveyard was most likely a battlefield graveyard (seems unlikely otherwise that so many would have died together, considering the much smaller populations back then). Obviously a good majority of them will have died of violence (if not all of them, it's probably because the injuries didn't leave evidence on the bones, like a belly wound). That seems to skew the results a bit. I don't know much about that latter point, only that he just generalized "some" pre-agricultural societies. It's worth noting that many pre-ag societies are under stress from farming communities (being pushed off good land, etc) and therefore must fight. Also, many pre-ag societies are extremely peaceful. I don't think generalizing about them based on a battlefield graveyard and the very few remaining hunter-gatherer societies is a good idea or that it will lead to anything useful. You're saying the USA isn't particularly belligerent? Or do you just mean they aren't towards China and India? If you mean the former, I'll have to disagree. Also, like I said, if Peak Oil is anything like what they say it could be, that'll mean a necessary resource becoming scarcer. Not only will the balance of power be shifting, but limited recources is one of the primary causes of wars, if not THE primary cause (generally speaking). And who knows what else might cause power shifts or changes in the political scene. Sometimes seemingly small issues can have big effects. Because of this, and because of the way the world is environmentally and in many ways politically unstable (or destabilizing, anyways), I doubt war will take much of a break. Human nature hasn't changed. As Hendrix said: when the power of love replaces the love of power, the world will know peace. Until then, I'm skeptical.
Quite true BTM, if the evidence of present renewed adherence to anachronistic aspirations of subjugation of weaker nations and colonialism (albeit under the new improved marketable guise of "liberation" and "export of democracy", aka "capitalistic hegemony) teaches us anything it's that history is indeed cyclical and we repeatedly refuse to take its lessons to heart for more than a generation. Pie in the sky illusions about society getting smarter and eschewing war flies in the face of all evidence of our consistent return to avarice and brutality and the very present empirically verifiable widespread subscription to misinformation, spin, lies and mindless televised entertainment. The vast majority are too busy numbing their brains with oprah, stern, game shows, televised sports, and a myriad of other distracting fluff to pay attention to the hard issues determining our future.
I just mean America isn't particularly belligerent toward China and India and vice versa, despite significant sources of friction between the three. A major conflict between any of those three would be absolutely devastating to both sides, so there simply isn't any reason for them to fight one another. True, but we've reached a scientific era where we can come up with alternative resources if necessary. Previous generations did not have that luxury. Oil will probably continue to be a major reason for conflict over the next decade or two, but I don't think it'll be that big of a factor beyond that time frame. I agree with you on that. Very true. While I think that war among countries with rational governments will become less common (no leader wants to devastate their own country and risk losing public support), it may very well continue among the less rational governments, groups, or people. Another interesting point to note, that I think the writer ignored, is the idea that war is become more "localized." In the mid-1900s, the big conflict was between two superpowers with half of the world supporting each. By the time Desert Storm occurred, this had shifted toward America forcing its influence on smaller countries, but more frequently. We're not completely through that phase yet as evidenced by the present war in Iraq, but the biggest security problem will probably become terrorist groups not affiliated with any nation. And depending on the proliferation of WMD technology, we may have to worry about lone crazy individuals after that. It seems to me that the enemies we fight are organizing in smaller and smaller groups. I'm not sure what effect this will have on the future of war, but it may mean that there are fewer major conflicts.
I'd say that's arguable. There are alternatives, but one questions whether they will be enough. Also, many can't be used for some of the things oil is used for (fertilizer, for example). I think no matter what alternatives we have, Peak Oil will still be a significant event with major consequences. That's a good point. If terrorism really is a major trend in how people fight, then the face of war changes greatly. But then, so do governments. Eventually people will demand security (who wants to be afraid to leave their house?) and it could, oddly enough, be the end of true democracy. Because with terrorism, anyone can be a suspect, because it's covert war. And because it's fought, essentially, on a person by person level, governments trying to stop their foes will come to require more restrictions on the people. And the people will probably welcome that. This is pure speculation on my part though, so who can say.
