I guess first you have to define peace. Is freedom from conflicts on national level enough? And of course there is inner peace.

I assumed red was talking international politics peace.

Utterly and completely ridiculous Utopian "I'm-a-sheep-lead-me-to-the-slaughter" concept.

Human history is one of war, of one group ruling others by the aggressive use of force, interrupted only by the illusion of peace. Even in whatever "peaceful" country you live in, you are surrounded by violence in order to "keep the peace" - but when said violence is "righteous", in the hands of "peace keepers" (police) we pretend we are at peace.

So did I at first, but then I thought of emotional peace. Which is usually closely linked to the other.

I'm not talking about inner peace, but about what Draugnar said: international politics peace. BRB.

@Partysane
The link between inner peace and political peace I believe is gravely overestimated in international politics.

i'd like a peace of peace-a pie

So here's the thing.

Take Obama's response to the Crimea situation. Is he avoiding war, or is he working toward a peaceful solution? Somehow these things seem equal, somehow they don't.

Is it worth trying against better judgment to "keep talking" and "work toward a peaceful solution"?

When is a pre-emptive war justified?

I'd really say that if our friend is only recently aware of conflict in the world via Syria and the non-violent take-over of Crimea...then he's been at a state of (ignorant bliss) peace for quite some time...Perhaps he would do well to find better news sources, and maybe read a history book.

If peace can be imposed on a swathe a territory as wide as the United States, it can be imposed on one as large as Asia or the whole world one day.

What it takes is a monopoly on violence, which means, a guy with a gun who's not afraid to use it to restrain violent groups. Ideally that guy is elected and held accountable himself so that he doesn't become an agent of war and oppression himself.

We're a long way from that world but that doesn't mean we haven't moved a long way toward that goal since, say, 1500 AD.

Peace....IMPOSED.

You fucking asstard.

Thucy, you piece of shit, I thought you were going to go join the army to put your nutts where you mouth is as you call for the US to go to war with Russia, you fucking idiot.

F is for fire that burns down the whole town
U is for uranium bombs
N is for no survivors when you

Yes, peace is imposed. It's a sad truth. If it isn't, it's only a matter of time before someone with a motive to be violent is like "well, who's going to stop me?"

And for the record I didn't say I will join the military now, I said that if our country sadly got caught up in a world war with Russia, that I would fight for America. As weirdly antiquated as that sounds I don't think I'd be the only guy my age that felt that way.

"What it takes is a monopoly on violence"
LOL, erm.... i think u mean a gubvment.... yeah, we already have that.

"a guy with a gun who's not afraid to use it to restrain violent groups. Ideally that guy is elected and held accountable himself so that he doesn't become an agent of war and oppression himself."

Oh dear, or...... we can just simply have armed citizens who can be responsible for their own safety, and that of others. Our retarded society becoming one of being afraid to take responsibility. People see others getting shanked, robbed, killed on the street, and instead of doing the right thing, and rushing to protect the victim, they cower, dial 911, and wait for the police to come 10 minutes late to a corpse. AND they think they did the "right thing" lol. No one wants to "get involved". Ensuring a monopoly on force will not lead to less violence, rather the opposite..

if you want peace between governments, you must have a government of governments, and not just that, one with a monopoly on violence.

isn't that pretty much what i said?

"Oh dear, or...... we can just simply have armed citizens who can be responsible for their own safety, and that of others."

Lmao get the fuck outta here with that. You mean like how it was in 15000 BC?

"You mean like how it was in 15000 BC?"
Lol what does that mean? Are you implying that people were backwards then because of that attitude? Or was it maybe because of lack of technological innovation, high living standards etc. ?

You pointed out 15000 BC just to make it more dramatic, but you could have just as easily chosen the American Midwest.

I am implying that in 15000 BC no one anywhere had a monopoly on violence and kinship clans roved around with only each other for protection from potentially violent people, and if you wanted to murder someone within your clan, you just had to do it and run away, and you'd probably never face justice, except exile anyway

In those days, and I am not making this up btw, the life expectancy was about 20, most people were orphans raised collectively by the clan, and the most common cause of death was by blunt trauma (accidents, human-animal violence, and human-human violence)

But by all means, we don't need government. sure

"He's making it up as he goes along......"

- 'Life of Brian', Monty Python