The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
>
>
> So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the
> threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter you.'
Or something.
> Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
>
>
> So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the
> threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
Thankyou for your forgiveness. I forgive you too Light.
As Jebus would say 'do unto others as you would have done unter you.'
Or something.
Light wrote:
> That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one
> nation isn't real peace.
True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time, peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at least.
> Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has
> increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK
> I believe.
But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the terrorists. And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western city again. Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take place. The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad, Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes, there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same just because it has before.
> Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly
> NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is
> it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more
> terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a gun fire, an explosion, and so on. For some people that is all the peace that's needed. Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP. We did that, and we'll get his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic. Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway - is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll take to lose.
> True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over
> everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be
> either.
In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things. Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action, but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned with China, North Korea and Russia.
> That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one
> nation isn't real peace.
True, in a sense, but for those living in peace because of force of arms it's really irrelevant. Realisitically, at this point in time, peace can only be achieved through force. I'm not saying that is how it will always be, because no one knows, but I'm saying - bar any major event - that's how its going to be for the next 10 years at least.
> Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has
> increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK
> I believe.
But September 11 - the worst act of terrorism in the western world ever, occurred before any major action was ever taken against the terrorists. And since 9/11 no terrorists have hit any major western city again. Sure, there are threats, but no actual attacks take place. The terrorists, after such a short time, are being forced to their last stand by hitting weak targets such as Bali, Baghdad, Kenya, and every month more and more are killed or captured. Yes, there will be potential terrorists to take their place, but not forever - you yourself said that nothing is forced to stay the same just because it has before.
> Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly
> NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is
> it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more
> terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
Of a vague sorts yes. World peace ? Nope, but a lot of people live their lives right now without ever being caught in a war, or seeing a gun fire, an explosion, and so on. For some people that is all the peace that's needed. Iraq was about war on Saddam's regime, you know as well as I do that everyone concerned made that clear, it was war on Saddam and the regime. It appears some of the intelligence used to justify action was wrong, but that doesn't remove the fact that Saddam needed taking out of power ASAP. We did that, and we'll get his followers bit by bit. I'm happy that Saddam is at last out of power and on the run. That more terrorists will be created...well that much was obvious, but they were going to emerge someday and to say "No we won't go give Saddam a damn good kicking because some people won't like it and will become terrorists" is pathetic. Right now I'd say the situation in Iraq - from news reports anyway - is improving. Food, water and electricity are being restored or are already, the #1 problem is security and the last UN resolution authorised more foreign troops and money, but it'll take time to get in place. As it is the last wave of bombings seem a stupid idea on the part of the terrorists in Iraq - by hitting the Red Cross they turn more Iraqi's against them, as well as by hitting the Iraqi policemen as well. The moment they stopped exclusively attacking the US troops was the moment they lost, all it is now is how long they'll take to lose.
> True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over
> everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be
> either.
In the US, and it's allies, I see countries that act, that do things. Yes, they usually have their own interests as part of that action, but when you look around the UN Security Council the rest of the table is pretty much as bad or worse. Right now I'd be more concerned with China, North Korea and Russia.
Heh. I know it isn't one obviously, but that sounds like a Bushism. A good one at that.
Peace? That's the dull bit between wars.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
> My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
So does reading posts from someone who's main contribution to the threads is "This is boring", but hey; you're forgiven!
My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position.
That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one nation isn't real peace.
There
> are still a few dangerous nations out there,
Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK I believe.
as well as threats from
> various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of
> them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who
> will act against them decisively.
Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
>
> In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not
> that world.
True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be either.
>
> I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position.
That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one nation isn't real peace.
There
> are still a few dangerous nations out there,
Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK I believe.
as well as threats from
> various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of
> them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who
> will act against them decisively.
Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
>
> In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not
> that world.
True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be either.
Light wrote:
> As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be
> questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant
> force in the world?
I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position. There are still a few dangerous nations out there, as well as threats from various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who will act against them decisively.
In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not that world.
> As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be
> questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant
> force in the world?
I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position. There are still a few dangerous nations out there, as well as threats from various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who will act against them decisively.
In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not that world.
Belldandy wrote:
> I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean
> everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most
> likely.
>
> Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group
> grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Again though, that works on the assumption that the way the world works will remain much the same. That's not as assumption I'd be comfortable making. Especially as it's only taken us, as a race, a few thousand years to go from a Hunter-Gatherer society to something quite, quite different.
As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant force in the world?
> I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean
> everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most
> likely.
>
> Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group
> grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Again though, that works on the assumption that the way the world works will remain much the same. That's not as assumption I'd be comfortable making. Especially as it's only taken us, as a race, a few thousand years to go from a Hunter-Gatherer society to something quite, quite different.
As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant force in the world?
I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most likely.
Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Page: