World Peace Watch

This discussion is closed.
Dabossi89
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
"Although we remember WW1 we have learnt little"

Any ideas or opinions please post below :-)
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I'd probably agree although i think we've learnt the least from the period in the lead up to WW2, the current attitudes of appeasement which allowed ISIS to develop and Russia to expand concern me.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I think we learned a lot from the 2 world wars - the fact that either occurred at all is a tragedy.
0
Republic1
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Europe has learnt an awful lot. As for other areas of the world - well maybe not so much. But Europe changed drastically post-1950 mainly on the grounds that war was finally seen for what it truly was. An awful waste of time, lives, and resources.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
People have no reason to want to learn.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
World peace is unattainable and to think otherwise is naive. There are two kinds of peace. The peace of plenty where people would want for nothing, but that is flawed to its core as it completely ignores key things in human nature; ambition, competition, greed, jealousy, and even things as innocent sounding as joy (some people actually get joy from watching others suffering) all corrupt individuals causing them to put their own needs before the needs of others.

The other is the concept of governance over people. Left, right, communism to capitalism, so many individual ideologies exist it would take forever to type them all and it is impossible to fulfill all ambitions. It is human nature that stops world peace. People tend to rebel, you see it in toddlers, teenagers, and adults and under these forms of government (ones that strive for peace among all) they would have to deal with any threat to society big or small with varying means, and if these means ever involved even the tiniest bit of violence in a peaceful world (free or not) someone will rise to call it wrong because that too is in our nature. Unless every person in the world desires goodwill of his fellow man and to seek to support and help that cause without being overcome by anger, greed, ignorance, etc.... you will forever have people speaking out.

There are two systems in the world. There's the single world government or Isolation. Both are impossible due to the formerly mentioned, and the latter is shown to not have been kept by even the greatest of countries, whether that be on the rationale of keeping world peace or the safety of its own people. Another is there is a small fraction of man that rules these countries, even those where the people have greater say, it is the small minority that has the final say and the power to carry through or prevent obstruction. If the small minority is corrupted, driven by anger, greed, and all those emotions and thoughts leading to conflict, then the country could go to war and return from it feeling it was pointless. If there was a system to address all of the factors leading to dispute where all peoples would be contented and satisfied, and then upheld solidly with no twisting of words, propaganda, secrecy etc... then world peace would be much closer in reach. However, the fact each individual has their own beliefs, values, thoughts and feelings, even if they were under one universal roof and maintained transparently, it would take just one person to cause questioning and conflict.




0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
We need to work harder to strengthen the UN and improve the impact of conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

Although total peace is unlikely, a lot of petty conflicts escalate into full war because there's no mechanism for rival parties to express their concerns to an impartial mediator.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Birchington)
We need to work harder to strengthen the UN and improve the impact of conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

Although total peace is unlikely, a lot of petty conflicts escalate into full war because there's no mechanism for rival parties to express their concerns to an impartial mediator.
I think the biggest hurdle to peace is not the lack of a neutral negotiater but the need for one side to be in the right. National pride must be retained for the sake of individual governments. I point to the Falklands, as I often do, for an example. The UN offered to negotiate on behalf of both sides, both Britain and Argentina initially accepted the offer but it soon became clear Britain wanted nothing more than the islands back whereas Argentina wanted nothing more than for the islands to be transferred to Argentine sovereignty. With both countries convinced they were in the right the only outcome would be war, with the victor taking control of the islands. I accept the UN was not and to this day is not the most impartial body for mediating but assuming it was completely neutral, the outcome would have been no different as both countries did not want to meet half way. If Britain had met Argentina half way Thatcher would have been gone come the election in '83; no British Prime Minister could survive giving up territory. Similarly, if Scotland votes yes, despite David Cameron's determination to not resign, his position will soon become untenable. He would experience immense pressure from the rest of the UK who overwhelmingly do not support Scottish independence, the Queen whose Kingdom has been eroded away, his party who are pro-UK and also his biggest donors whose businesses will suffer as a result of doing business in two separate countries. He will be forced to resign. Going back to Argentina, if the patriotic attempt to take islands had failed, as it did, Galtieri's fall would have been quicker and his status as a national heroine ruined even quicker. Both leaders, concerned with power (part of human nature) would attempt to avoid their downfall at all costs.

In short, there could be a limitless number of neutral negotiators but unless both sides are willing to negotiate and meet half way conflict will still arise. Every conflict in the last century has been started because both side were not willing to negotiate or meet half way. As a simplified analogy, if I was being picked on in the school playground, or if I was punched in the playground, my reaction would be to fight back. I wouldn't complain, or want to go talking it over with a teacher, or even shake hands agreeing to go our own ways. I would want a fight to stamp my authority and not lose any status. Countries act in much the same way. But unlike a school playground international status is viewed as more important or desirable.
1
MacDaddi
Badges: 15
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Only when forced to change will countries do so. War has improved the lives of many (liberation of people from tyrannical regimes) yet tragically ended far far far too many, one life lost is too many. Is it a necessary evil? I don't know, I honestly don't.
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
We've learned a lot. The main problem is human nature, no amount of ideology is going to prevent us from being savage animals that will kill one another in the name of ideals and material. It's part of who we are.
0
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Birchington)
We need to work harder to strengthen the UN and improve the impact of conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

Although total peace is unlikely, a lot of petty conflicts escalate into full war because there's no mechanism for rival parties to express their concerns to an impartial mediator.
The UN needs an independent government and army to enforce its will, as it stands everyone abuses it because geopolitics doesn't work within an idealist 'conflict resolution'.

(Original post by Rakas21)
I'd probably agree although i think we've learnt the least from the period in the lead up to WW2, the current attitudes of appeasement which allowed ISIS to develop and Russia to expand concern me.

Russian dominated Eastern Europe, German (although unlike the other two unlikely to be literal) dominated Western Europe, Chinese dominated Asia. Russia is an interesting case, I think it will go for Belarus next the so called 'White Russians' are an important tradition in Russian ethnic identity. It's unlikely they'll take Poland given the historical indifference to Russian culture.
0
Qwertish
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Dabossi89)
Hey I am doing my first debate ever, and I am very nervous about it

"Although we remember WW1 we have learnt little"


Any ideas or opinions please post below :-)
Are you arguing for or against?

Russia's current actions are very reminiscent of the lead up to both WWs, and the EU's collective action (or lack thereof) is always worryingly similar. I think the difference is that currently the EU's inaction is due to the fact that we all strongly remember the Wars, and the tension of the Cold War, and have little desire to return to that state of affairs.

I just hope Russia feels the same way.
0
miser
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
The only solution that stands out to me is World Government, which I'm doubtful will occur any time soon.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by miser)
The only solution that stands out to me is World Government, which I'm doubtful will occur any time soon.
If we can have a unified Anglosphere and a unified Europe then that would be a start.
0
miser
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rakas21)
If we can have a unified Anglosphere and a unified Europe then that would be a start.
Sure would be.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by DErasmus)
The UN needs an independent government and army to enforce its will, as it stands everyone abuses it because geopolitics doesn't work within an idealist 'conflict resolution'.

Russian dominated Eastern Europe, German (although unlike the other two unlikely to be literal) dominated Western Europe, Chinese dominated Asia. Russia is an interesting case, I think it will go for Belarus next the so called 'White Russians' are an important tradition in Russian ethnic identity. It's unlikely they'll take Poland given the historical indifference to Russian culture.
Can't imagine Russia taking any EU nation. Not only because the Polish despise Russia but also because the EU would have to respond militarily. Why would any former eastern block nation stay in a union which won't even defend its borders.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (61)
8.5%
I used to but I don't now (17)
2.37%
No, but I want to start (269)
37.47%
No, I am unable to (172)
23.96%
No, I chose not to (199)
27.72%

Watched Threads

View All