'Sup.

[Giff]

I was rather nder the impression that war was something that tends to arise out of pressure for resources.

Yes, that's acctually right. But to get upport from people is fear and lack of knowledge important

Maybe but according to Wiki (not my favourite source) Swedish WW2 neutrality was rather ineffectual as they still supplied steel and machined parts to Nazi Germany and some have even accused Sweden of cowardice because of their stance.

Kyu

Yes I agree have personally ciritzised the swedish goverments cowardness. Even though it was to protect the country from an invasion was this very much wrong to do.

However we were not involved in the war, and we had also persons who saved people from death camps. Even though the goverment were very afraid and was helping Germany in some areas, were most of the people against the nazis and the war.

Sweden have always been critizing and been opposing wars since then. Specially the Vietnam war for an instant. We were also critizing the decision to attack Iraq, although the goverment weren't specillay intrested to express that opinion.

[Azazylix]

Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon. Peace referring to forced peace, kinda like a government pressing a civic society on its people. Peace in cooperation and understanding doesn't necessarily breed contempt in most cases, and in some can actually be used to create a higher level of learning and advancement. But there are some cases where peace does have negative effects on the people, I think.

If I may draw a rough analogy, I heard that a seedling that's buried deep in soil actually grows a lot better and turns out a lot stronger compared to one that's at the surface. Opposition is a prerequisite to healthy progress. Like Napoleon's reign after the French Revolution! Maybe some societies already had their fair share of opposition, but that's what I think.

[Giff]

But there are some cases where peace does have negative effects on the people, I think.

Can you give some examples?

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought peace was peaceful...and isn't that a good thing?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this perhaps, Aza? ( hope you don't mind me calling you Aza )

[Azazylix]

Sorry, busy recently. ><

Well yes, peace is what most societies yearn for, and it is peaceful and good in that sense, in that no one has to suffer and die, etc etc.

But personally I believe that peace does bring some amount of harm to the society. How else to put it than 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'? Was Napoleon's reign not born out of the French Revolution? Did Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, not rise to prominence out of bloodshed?

Let's take Singapore right now, for example. Our last war was WWII, and we've had 'peace' ever since. But its because of such peace that apathy breeds in our society. No one wants to be even vaguely involved in politics, and we convince ourselves that civic service is, in fact, civil service, when in fact it isn't. No one openly questions the government, them having put in place the Sedition Act and so forth. Sure, we're peaceful, but are we moving?

In essence, I'm the kind of person who believes that progress can only come through constant change and conflict, and peace is, in certain aspects to me, sometimes degrading to society. So yeah.

And yeah, Aza's nice. ^^

[Edwardo Piet]

Well you mean war to defeat MORE war to have a resulting stage of 'peace'? (I say stage because the peace never lasts forever) Well yeah....war can solve conflicts when if a country didn't defend themselves (and they also have a RIGHT to defend themselves (if you (hypothetical you) believe in rights lol)) the resulting war and bloodshed - and SUFFERING in general - would have been a lot WORSE....

Well... yeah. BUT - if you're just talking about which is better, Peace or war? In that sense I'd of course say Peace lol. I mean IDEALLY, it would be best if there were NO wars at all. And everyone just had peace and good times lol)

EvF

[Azazylix]

I see what you're saying. And I agree! Death and suffering is terrible, as I think I did mention earlier.
And then considering globalization and the coming of a diplomatic era, I'm quite sure any war that would be started now between any two powerhouses would have quite a catastrophic effect on the rest of the world. But that doesn't discount the fact that change is sometimes needed to motivate a society! It might not come in the form of a bloody, violent war but that's one of the more radical alternatives of change.

Peace is good, peace is good. But I just feel that sometimes some societies might need a poke or two, y'know? ><

[Edwardo Piet]

Speaking from a practical sense I understand that it at least CAN BE perhaps different to it is when we're just talking of the principle of the matter I'm sure.

EvF

[Azazylix]

Ah yes, principle-wise I do admit my views fall short. But as a theory it is rather practical, is it not, is it not!

But of course change can come in other forms, like change in governments or media, or perhaps self-inspired change or so on and so forth, but change's true enemy would be apathy, which, in most cases, does evolve from peace, correct?