[lit-ideas] Re: War and Panic
- From: Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 23:51:08 EST
In a message dated 11/2/2005 4:45:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
It is absurd to use the word peace to describe a situation where one side
destroys the
other
Hi
I'm not sure we'll ever have peace if this is the definition of the word.
We must eliminate peace.
Even diplomacy, then, is 'war', right? Sanctions destroy one side (often)
by hurting the civilian world of a nation-state. (as though anyone in
authority really cares <wry look>)
So--if we could just do what Andy often says and face the fact that we'll
never have peace, there will always be conflict--then we might actually get
somewhere with living in settings which resemble that of a peaceful place.
They would not be 'peaceful', though, as that is now not a helpful word.
If the warmongers could just understand that peace really means war since
one side is one-up-ing the other..life would be not peaceful...and healthy.
Best,
Marlena
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
Other related posts:
