…that noone in this ‘social sciences’ forum has yet to mention the impossibility of arms makers and arms sellers making peace?
Does the reader not wonder why forums such as this deal so seldom with matters of consequence?
Hello F(r)iends,
So instead of choosing to discuss it, you choose to bitch about it…
This thread belongs in the rant house.
-Thirst
What exactly do you want.
Can the original post not also serve as an invitation to discuss? An invitation you refuse?
You affirm my suspicions, sir.
Meaningful discussion. It makes sense to me to discussion social effort in this forum, as an aspect of social science.
How many nations have large and profitable arms industries, and how does this affect expectation of them working for peace? Do said nations pretend to want to work toward peace?
If you read Romeo D’Allaire’s ‘Shake hands with the Devil’ you might get a glimps of a belgian expatriot fomenting genocide to sell weapons. You might see how the structure of the U.N. facilitates the (ex-?)belgian’s efforts.
This seems relevant to social science to me.
jeffl
you know what kills the odds to a good debate?
throwing a random pebble in the pond and a bad attitude to go with it
a good post needs the volume of content and the weight of argumentation… you can yell all you want, but you’re not going to move any water like this
Fabrique national makes good assualt weapons…
the point is not completely in the fact that we have highly effective killing machines… build a better mouse trap and the world beats a path to your door…
the fact that we have the weapons to deter the use of them by others is the important difference… peace only comes through superior firepower…
it isn’t the job of the arms manufacturers to make their products unnecessary because of some peace and love garbage… it is the job of the peace and love fanatics to disarm the rest… preaching peace and love doesn’t disarm anyone… but a well fired bullet sure does.
-Imp
You’re darn right.
The Parable of the Sheep 30 Mar 2005
Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. “Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!”
One sheep spoke up, saying “It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery.” The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.
That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried “Begone! We are not food!” and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out “Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!”
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. “But we are your brethren!” they cried, “We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!”
“Baaaaaaaddd!”, cried the flock,“the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!”. So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep’s weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, “Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!”.
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying “It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!”. But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of “Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!”.
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying “Baaaaddd! Bad things!”.
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep’s totems and signs, and said, “Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!”. And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, “See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!”. But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, “Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!”. The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another’s teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.
The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
By Charles Riggs, (C) 1997
[/img]
Thanks willem. You’re right on all three points, i suppose.
In myown defence, i am operating under certain constraints. I can’t take a … diplomatic perspective; i disagree strongly with what i perceive to be an historical bias toward appearance and an ignorance of content.
I hope you’ll understand that the only particular offense was intended for the man at the radiostation; and i will admit an intent toward further offense but, in those cases intended toward structures rather than individuals; structures that both of our nations are involved in. I have the advantage that canadians are very bad liars 
.
And when you put the gun down; what then? Everything is peace and love 'cause everyone respects the gun on the floor? If not, then what of equity and respect?
You define your own hell; and it is for those who love Truth to wall you off, like the body walls off an infection. This isn’t some airy-fairy religious perspective; it is merely a consequence of the facts of the matter.
Fair warning; my gun is already on the floor; i have it in pieces for you; and it will be back together and the bullet through your head before this thread even started!
To extend the analogy i’ll point out that sheep also have the ability to recognize faces; and i’ll suggest that instead of the sheep being regarded as one flock when it speaks, that the sheep talk to the sheep they recognize about the teeth and claws. The important thing is that the weapons be directed outwardly.
if you have it in pieces you have lost the battle.
-Imp
jeffl
as i understand it, it’s all about seperating and balancing powers… the only way democracy is ever going to work the way it’s supposed to
You don’t understand the nature of the battle.
As willem points out, the title and first post are an assault; and a commitment to violence is the target. After the fatal shot, the gun is dismantled.
Noone’s saying it is.
Well, if peace is the only reasonable alternative, then it would also be the job of reasonable people.
‘Preaching’ Truth does.
It is reasonable to expect that governments respect and respond to the will of their peace loving and reasonable constituents by putting some transparent controls in place. It is also reasonable to expect the UN to have another layer of transparent controls. Why else get together?
As i see it, the only way that democracy will work the way it’s supposed to is if the people have the information they need to make an informed decision.
It seems to me that if people new how interesting history really is, they’d be all over that stuff.
I have a notion that imbalance has been present in western european culture ever since the cynic was eclipsed by popular culture; the fullness of ‘you are in my sun.’ It’s not so much how the structure is that bothers me (not any more 
), it’s that the people aren’t aware of it; we ought to be able to at least discuss it.
So blame the education system for failing to provide people with adequate information and critical skills. The failings of the western education culture concerns me far more than the failings of the electoral systems…
“Truth”?!? LMAO…
-Imp
Kind of a ‘chicken and egg’ sort of senario, i see. I agree with your prioritization of education, certainly. I say ‘chiken and egg’ because i see myown provincial government as intentionally undereducating it’s citizens.
I don’t think it makes sense to ‘blame’ structures; ultimately it’s people who make the decisions and build and impliment the structures, they/we are the ones responsible.
If you have any content to add then please do so. If all you can do is wave a gun around then maybe go back to school.
Reminds me of childish war games; i got you, you’re dead!
and Thrasymachus agrees with me.
“i got you, you’re dead” - and that my friend is wisdom.
-Imp