[Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war

[Jenifer Cartwright]

"Small" doesn't preclude internal warring, often among the bloodiest, cruelest, and longest of conflicts...

--- On Fri, 7/17/09, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] binary criterion of war/not war
To: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2009, 8:26 PM


> wake me up when one of you figures out a better system of government, in
> terms of your ONE stupid binary criterion of war/not war.

This does bring up an interesting question. I don't think that the
type of government has much to do with whether a country will go to
war.

What does make a difference?

I suppose smaller, less powerful countries tend not to declare war on
their big, powerful neighbors [there are notable exceptions to this
rule]. But in order to have small countries, large powerful countries
would also need to exist and the big powerful countries would be
tempted to create empires.

I suppose that a country made up entirely of Quakers and Mennonites
would not start a war. But I don't think religion is a good way to
separate people into countries. [Though I have noticed that Mormon
children consistently share their toys the most readily of all the
children I have observed.]

I suppose that if all the countries were on equal footing with regards
to resources and access to the basic needs, then there would be less
temptation to go to war.

I think that every 7 years, everything needs to be re-distributed equally.

-karen medina
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090719/39071bd1/attachment.htm