Peace

[shrek]

With all the Talk of Obama Winning the Nobel Peace Prize it got me to thinking. Can peace be truly achieved and how????????????????

I personally believe Peace can be achieved but not eternally and not simply by refusing to fight.

In my signature line I quote Plato stating that only the dead have seen the end of war. I truly believe in that.

But ending war is not the same as bringing about Peace. Peace can be achieved but only through strength.

When you are strong and everyone knows it few if any are willing to take you on. That maintains peace. But while that may be the case you must constantly work at building your strength. The moment you ease up, others will begin to test your strength to see if they can defeat you.

Peace cannot be achieved simply by refusing to fight for what you believe in. Why? Because even if you stop and are unwilling to fight, those that stand against you will not stop at the same time.

This is not a thread about Obama and whether he deserved to win the Peace Prize. This is about Peace and whether it can be achieved and how. Please debate away. Thanks.

[Guild-Sfire]

Peace can be achieved but only through strength

That worked well for Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

[shrek]

That worked well for Gandhi and Martin Luther King.


Guildsfire,

Yes actually you raise two very good points. They refused to resort to violence. But they were not weak.

The reality is though, that gandhi's and Martin Luther Kings tactics only work the other side is stronger and starts the attack first.

When Defending yourself from outside attacks, you cannot simply sit back and refuse to not fight.

Why? Because that enemy will simply kill you and walk all over you.

In the case of both Ghandi and MLK their opposition could not simply kill them. As MLK's death showed. His death only strengthened his Movement and message and ultimately helped defeat us.

But if a foreign power invaded the US and killed the sitting president in power, it most likely would not have the same effect.

[Iggy]

As long as there are people there will be no peace. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it, there will always be someone willing to destroy someone else for any old reason.

[7ranz]

I am usually cautious when it comes to talking about 'human nature' but in this case it seems rather obvious that the idea of Peace is an ideal that can never be reached. A rather simplistic point of view on my part but reality seems to slam this in our face repeatedly.

As for 'Peace through Strength' it is obvious that that works in many instances however it, like all things, can twist the 'Strong Man' into quite a violent thing. You can't really be the strong man too long without exercising some force.

[croupier101]

none of the above.

[shrek]

As long as there are people there will be no peace. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it, there will always be someone willing to destroy someone else for any old reason.

Iggy,

While I agree with you 100% that there will always be someone wanting to attack and destroy what you have. But History has shown that while those people always exist, historically societies and nations have had periods of peace.

I guess the challenge is how one defines peace and views what peace should be.

Peace is not the absense of enemies and strife. Its the ability by one to handle and withhold their enemies and work through strife without allowing those outside forces to destroy what we have.

Note the US had peace after WWII. It was not an outside force that nearly destroyed our nation in the Late 1960', it was internal strife which was anything but peace.

[Andrew_980]

Peace is an illusion. If we could end the possability of violence, they would find another way to try to harm anyone differant.

[Jabbamagnus]

As long as there are people there will be no peace. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it, there will always be someone willing to destroy someone else for any old reason.

Ding Ding! We have a winner! :D

Yup since the beginning of time man has always been fighting amongst each other.

[shrek]

none of the above.

One of the possible choices was no. So you do then if you say none of the above. You think that no was not an acceptable choice that peace will indeed work?????????????

Please explain.

[Guild-Sfire]

Guildsfire,

Yes actually you raise two very good points. They refused to resort to violence. But they were not weak.

The reality is though, that gandhi's and Martin Luther Kings tactics only work the other side is stronger and starts the attack first.

When Defending yourself from outside attacks, you cannot simply sit back and refuse to not fight.

Why? Because that enemy will simply kill you and walk all over you.

In the case of both Ghandi and MLK their opposition could not simply kill them. As MLK's death showed. His death only strengthened his Movement and message and ultimately helped defeat us.

But if a foreign power invaded the US and killed the sitting president in power, it most likely would not have the same effect.

Strength....does not always equate to using it. (for example.....invading countries)

As Iggy stated, Peace is something to strive for...but is never attainable.

Like everything...there needs to be a balance.....

[shrek]

I am usually cautious when it comes to talking about 'human nature' but in this case it seems rather obvious that the idea of Peace is an ideal that can never be reached. A rather simplistic point of view on my part but reality seems to slam this in our face repeatedly.

As for 'Peace through Strength' it is obvious that that works in many instances however it, like all things, can twist the 'Strong Man' into quite a violent thing. You can't really be the strong man too long without exercising some force.

True the strong man will be tested. But through that test and the force that strong person exudes peace is once again gained. As I said before. Peace cannot be eternal. But I do believe peace can be obtained.

Again however Peace is not a tranquil thing. It cannot be.

[shrek]

Strength....does not always equate to using it. (for example.....invading countries)

As Iggy stated, Peace is something to strive for...but is never attainable.

Like everything...there needs to be a balance.....

True, there needs to be balance in all things. History shows peace can be attained. Just not for eternity and not without work.

As to invading countries. Is it strength to watch our enemy attack us and then run to the borders of a country and hide???????? Not according to other enemies that would eventually do the same thing.

Invading an enemy country to stop the attacks on your country is far different than invading a nation to sieze its territory and resources and turn it into a colony.

[Mohawk5]

There will always be enemies out there in every form.

[shrek]

Ding Ding! We have a winner! :D

Yup since the beginning of time man has always been fighting amongst each other.

The Presence of turmoil does not always indicate the absense of Peace.

A lake can appear very peaceful on the surface but underneath its constant movement, either from creatures within or from the currents hidden from view.

The presence of that activity underneath the surface indicates that the lake is alive and well even if looking peaceful on the surface.

A lack of that activity would indicate stagnation and death.

[shrek]

There will always be enemies out there in every form.

Yes, exactly. But the presense of Enemies does not automatically mean the lack of Peace.

[ThrowCop]

As long as there is something of value in one person's or country's hands that someone else wants, there will be no peace.

[Greyclouds]

With all the Talk of Obama Winning the Nobel Peace Prize it got me to thinking. Can peace be truly achieved and how????????????????

I personally believe Peace can be achieved but not eternally and not simply by refusing to fight.

In my signature line I quote Plato stating that only the dead have seen the end of war. I truly believe in that.

But ending war is not the same as bringing about Peace. Peace can be achieved but only through strength.

When you are strong and everyone knows it few if any are willing to take you on. That maintains peace. But while that may be the case you must constantly work at building your strength. The moment you ease up, others will begin to test your strength to see if they can defeat you.

Peace cannot be achieved simply by refusing to fight for what you believe in. Why? Because even if you stop and are unwilling to fight, those that stand against you will not stop at the same time.

This is not a thread about Obama and whether he deserved to win the Peace Prize. This is about Peace and whether it can be achieved and how. Please debate away. Thanks.

Not for any long-lasting period of time.

Selective pressures on human alleles favor aggressiveness, which can be tied to expression levels of mono-amine oxidase.

In English: many human beings are genetically more LIKELY to be aggressive, and that is favored by our preference in mates. That aggression is what keeps us from maintaining and enjoying peace.

So long as there are aggressive people, there will be war. WHOM will be the object of our ire depends on who is more of a threat. If you want peace amongst human beings? Just create a more powerful adversary for us to struggle against.

[shrek]

Not for any long-lasting period of time.

Selective pressures on human alleles favor aggressiveness, which can be tied to expression levels of mono-amine oxidase.

In English: many human beings are genetically more LIKELY to be aggressive, and that is favored by our preference in mates. That aggression is what keeps us from maintaining and enjoying peace.

So long as there are aggressive people, there will be war. WHOM will be the object of our ire depends on who is more of a threat. If you want peace amongst human beings? Just create a more powerful adversary for us to struggle against.

I agree peace cannot be eternal.

Note however that peace does not = inactivity or stagnation. Some of the most peaceful and relaxed persons are some of the most active persons.

History shows that a truly strong nation does not sit back and do nothing while in a period of Peace during that period of peace truly strong nations build even stronger, both in wealth and military strenth.

War only occurs when weakness is percieved.

[shrek]

As long as there is something of value in one person's or country's hands that someone else wants, there will be no peace.

Not quite. As long as other people do not see a way to get it there will be peace.

Peace does not mean the absense of enemies or those willing to hurt you to get what you want.

Peace only means that at that time those enemies do not see a sign of weakness to be able to hurt you and take what they want.

[Greyclouds]

I agree peace cannot be eternal.

Note however that peace does not = inactivity or stagnation. Some of the most peaceful and relaxed persons are some of the most active persons.

History shows that a truly strong nation does not sit back and do nothing while in a period of Peace during that period of peace truly strong nations build even stronger, both in wealth and military strenth.

War only occurs when weakness is percieved.

Exactly. Human aggression when it seems timely.

[killSocialism]

Peace is not the absence of war, peace is the threat of war.

[shrek]

Exactly. Human aggression when it seems timely.

Yes, exactly,You get it. Peace is percieved by many as only being achieved by being willingly weak.

I disagree. Peace is only achieved by not only being strong, but being visibly strong and constantly working at maintaining that strength.

Peace is not free, nor easy to keep once obtained.

[shrek]

Peace is not the absence of war, peace is the threat of war.

Kill,

I agree and disagree. Instead of stating peace is the threat of war. I would say Peace is the ability and willingness to go to war if necessary.

To those out there that think Conservatives are war mongers. Keep in mind being willing to do something, does not mean you want to do something. There is a difference.

[tsout]

It took me a lot of years to understand this but my Dad worked for the Dept. of the Navy. Helped design the guidance systems for the Polaris and Poseidon, submarine based ICBM's. All their patches and stickers said "Sea Power for Peace." It wasn't until I was a young adult that I understood what that meant. Now you get into an argument of mutually assured destruction. Is that truly peace or is it more of a fear? Is fear of retaliation and assured destruction really peace? Some would argue yes. If that is the case; why was it called the Cold War?

[Values]

That worked well for Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

MLK brought peace???

Btw, India now has nukes.

[shrek]

It took me a lot of years to understand this but my Dad worked for the Dept. of the Navy. Helped design the guidance systems for the Polaris and Poseidon, submarine based ICBM's. All their patches and stickers said "Sea Power for Peace." It wasn't until I was a young adult that I understood what that meant. Now you get into an argument of mutually assured destruction. Is that truly peace or is it more of a fear? Is fear of retaliation and assured destruction really peace? Some would argue yes. If that is the case; why was it called the Cold War?

It is peace. Note an enemy will only attack if they see weakness in their oponant, but only if they can utilize that weakness to destroy their enemy while having smaller losses on their side.

Yes Missilles are bad and destructive. But no more so than your army of 5 thousand holding swords facing an army of 5 thousand holding swords.

Both are mutually distructive to those facing them.

Keep in mind if the US did not have its missilles the Soviet Union would have attacked us in a second with their missiles.

Do you deny that???????????????????????????

[shrek]

MLK brought peace???

Btw, India now has nukes.

MLK did not bring peace. But he did stand strong against those that meant Violence against him.

But keep in mind MLK fought a Mental and image war. A war in which he won. Just because MLK refused to resort to violence does not mean he was not fighting. He was just fighting the war in a different way.

[Values]

MLK did not bring peace. But he did stand strong against those that meant Violence against him.

But keep in mind MLK fought a Mental and image war. A war in which he won. Just because MLK refused to resort to violence does not mean he was not fighting. He was just fighting the war in a different way.

I understand, but in the context of the OP, if peace were to be tried with MLK's tactics, we would have been killed as a coutry and others would then gain from our deaths.
I am not interested in making the USofA a martyr nation.

[aep1974]

As long as there are people there will be no peace. It doesn't matter how hard you work at it, there will always be someone willing to destroy someone else for any old reason.

qft

[Greyclouds]

Yes, exactly,You get it. Peace is percieved by many as only being achieved by being willingly weak.

I disagree. Peace is only achieved by not only being strong, but being visibly strong and constantly working at maintaining that strength.

Peace is not free, nor easy to keep once obtained.

Well, no, that wasn't my point...

My point was that human nature is mostly aggressive based on our overall genetic predilection towards aggression. The aggressive male gets to mate. The aggressive female gets to mate. Since such aggression is rooted in genetic origins, the predilection to be aggressive is selected for and passed to the next generation.

Rather, peace IS a function of being willingly weak, albeit more on an intellectual level. You're stopping yourself from attacking something that you perceive to be weaker when you hold every tactical advantage. For example: the United States could right now exert a massive hegemony upon the entire American super-continent without much military trouble.

We have, in essence, made ourselves "willingly weak" since we have not taken advantage of our tactical advantage.


I'm glad that we haven't done so.

[ThrowCop]

Not quite. As long as other people do not see a way to get it there will be peace.

Peace does not mean the absense of enemies or those willing to hurt you to get what you want.

Peace only means that at that time those enemies do not see a sign of weakness to be able to hurt you and take what they want.That is not peace...

that is deferred war.

[shrek]

I understand, but in the context of the OP, if peace were to be tried with MLK's tactics, we would have been killed as a coutry and others would then gain from our deaths.
I am not interested in making the USofA a martyr nation.

Do not confuse Peace with Tactics.

MLK used specific tactics to defeat his enemy. That does not mean that his refusal to use violence =peace.

[shrek]

That is not peace...

that is deferred war.

But in a way that is all that Peace is. Peace is not forever, it cannot be maintained for an eternity. And once Peace ends its war.

Again peace does not mean an absense of Enemies. And it does not mean an end to people not wanting what you have or people wanting to dominate you. It only means that for the time being they are not going to attack you.

That can be because they already dominate you or because they have yet to figure out a way to dominate you.

Note Fidel Castro used to shout from the roof tops that he brought his people 50 years of Peace. And while technically he is true, he did, he did not bring them prosperity and happiness. He also brought them 50 years of Turmoil and mysery.

Why was peace not a good thing for Cuba? Because the wrong person controlled that peace.

[shrek]

Well, no, that wasn't my point...

My point was that human nature is mostly aggressive based on our overall genetic predilection towards aggression. The aggressive male gets to mate. The aggressive female gets to mate. Since such aggression is rooted in genetic origins, the predilection to be aggressive is selected for and passed to the next generation.

Rather, peace IS a function of being willingly weak, albeit more on an intellectual level. You're stopping yourself from attacking something that you perceive to be weaker when you hold every tactical advantage. For example: the United States could right now exert a massive hegemony upon the entire American super-continent without much military trouble.

We have, in essence, made ourselves "willingly weak" since we have not taken advantage of our tactical advantage.


I'm glad that we haven't done so.

Ok then we are not in agreement. One can stop attacking others and not be weak. Strength also means one knows when to flex their muscles and when not to.

A person can have tons of physical strength but if they misuse it they then make themselves weak and defeatable.

My Dad is a strong man and as kids we feared him. He had the look of death on him. But he rarely punished us because of that look. He did not need to constantly exert his might to make us stay in line.

All he had to do was look our way. That is the smart and strong way to maintain peace.

Not being willing to attack your enemy or defend yourself from an enemy because your afraid of what the world will think of you is Weakness personified and something our enemies are just chomping at the bit to take advantage of.

[spinach]

peace won't be possible until Jesus rules in the millineum rule.

man cannot bring peace, because man is in rebellion to the Lord, who is King of Peace.
at best, mankind sometimes refrains from outright murder and war, when left to his own devices.

It is only by the grace of God that the planet has not had a nuclear war and wiped itself out

[shrek]

peace won't be possible until Jesus rules in the millineum rule.

man cannot bring peace, because man is in rebellion to the Lord, who is King of Peace.
at best, mankind sometimes refrains from outright murder and war, when left to his own devices.

It is only by the grace of God that the planet has not had a nuclear war and wiped itself out

Spinach,

In the eternal sense I agree with you. Only God and Jesus Christ will bring about True and ever lasting peace.

But humans can help build peace in their lives and in the nation they live in by maintaining their strength. Which I also state comes in part by believing on Jesus Christ.

[samurai7]

The Romans had a saying. It roughly translates to:

If you want peace, prepare for war.

[shrek]

The Romans had a saying. It roughly translates to:

If you want peace, prepare for war.

And a saying I agree with entirely.

[spinach]

Spinach,

In the eternal sense I agree with you. Only God and Jesus Christ will bring about True and ever lasting peace.

But humans can help build peace in their lives and in the nation they live in by maintaining their strength. Which I also state comes in part by believing on Jesus Christ.

while humans cannot being peace, we do have a part that we can play:

1. know the Lord
2. stand for what is right
3. stand against evil

Various kings of Israel did these three, and it is written that "God gave them peace on every side".

If a nation is trusting in God, and does those three, God will indeed be their hedge and shield, and they will have peace.

[kaspiahn]

That is not peace...

that is deferred war.

The longer war is deferred the longer peace lasts.

[Ingator]

As it has been stated, there will always be people who will want to do others harm. However if properly dealt with, the inclination of another to be ruthless can be neutralized. In fact, you can win them over to your side and you could become friends.

If they are not of the same nature, they may still want to harm you, but if a nation "walks" the right way, the other country won't dare mess with them

What shrek is talking about not only happens in the macro world between nations but also in the micro world of people's daily lives. Between spouses, bosses, employee's, etc, etc

[Iggy]

Iggy,

While I agree with you 100% that there will always be someone wanting to attack and destroy what you have. But History has shown that while those people always exist, historically societies and nations have had periods of peace.

I guess the challenge is how one defines peace and views what peace should be.

Peace is not the absense of enemies and strife. Its the ability by one to handle and withhold their enemies and work through strife without allowing those outside forces to destroy what we have.

Note the US had peace after WWII. It was not an outside force that nearly destroyed our nation in the Late 1960', it was internal strife which was anything but peace.

Well, it comes down to what you consider "peace". Don't forget, the peace following WW2 was only a perceived peace. We were still hotly embroiled in a Cold War with the Soviet Union.

[ChaosControl]

I can't select any of the poll options.

I don't believe it is permanent, but I do believe it is achieveable. I don't believe we should lay down our weapons, but I do believe we should not intervene in foreign nations. We should be strong so that if we are attacked we can destroy our attackers, however we should not be the ones going abroad attacking others.

If more people were comfortable at allowing other nations to do as they want within their own nation, we wouldn't have near the issues we do. Of course it becomes a different matter once someone else goes on the offensive.

[Reev]

This is a stupid poll, did it take you a long time to come up with those options?

[Iggy]

This is a stupid poll, did it take you a long time to come up with those options?It looks to me like he covered all the bases in the poll. Do you have some higher plane you'd like to take us to but can't because you'd rather complain about it?

[Reev]

It looks to me like he covered all the bases in the poll. Do you have some higher plane you'd like to take us to but can't because you'd rather complain about it?

Everyone needs a skill ^^

[shrek]

while humans cannot being peace, we do have a part that we can play:

1. know the Lord
2. stand for what is right
3. stand against evil

Various kings of Israel did these three, and it is written that "God gave them peace on every side".

If a nation is trusting in God, and does those three, God will indeed be their hedge and shield, and they will have peace.

Your right. Note that the US has had peace when it was closest to the lord. It has had turmoil and war when it was furthest from the Lord.

[shrek]

As it has been stated, there will always be people who will want to do others harm. However if properly dealt with, the inclination of another to be ruthless can be neutralized. In fact, you can win them over to your side and you could become friends.

If they are not of the same nature, they may still want to harm you, but if a nation "walks" the right way, the other country won't dare mess with them

What shrek is talking about not only happens in the macro world between nations but also in the micro world of people's daily lives. Between spouses, bosses, employee's, etc, etc

I agree, while one does not perfectly emulate the other the way we treat and act between individuals does mirror the way nations act and react to each other.

[shrek]

Everyone needs a skill ^^

Complaining is not a skill.

If you think my poll is stupid, care to give me a few suggested questions you would have liked to see in the poll?

Or are you here just to deflect away from the point of this thread and try to redirect everyones attention back to you?

Like a 3 year old screaming in the grocery store.

[Values]

I can't select any of the poll options.

I don't believe it is permanent, but I do believe it is achieveable. I don't believe we should lay down our weapons, but I do believe we should not intervene in foreign nations. We should be strong so that if we are attacked we can destroy our attackers, however we should not be the ones going abroad attacking others.

If more people were comfortable at allowing other nations to do as they want within their own nation, we wouldn't have near the issues we do. Of course it becomes a different matter once someone else goes on the offensive.

So, you do not agree with sanctions and treaties then.
For without force, sanctions have no way of doing anything, and if we have a treaty with another country to fight their aggressors we must go to their aid.
You appear to live in a bubble that is untenable.

[shrek]

Well, it comes down to what you consider "peace". Don't forget, the peace following WW2 was only a perceived peace. We were still hotly embroiled in a Cold War with the Soviet Union.

We had turmoil yes, but we also had peace. There was nothing percieved about it. It could have turned to war at any second yes. But it did not because we were strong.

Again Peace is not the absense of turmoil. Peace is ones strength to be able to handle the turmoil as it presents itself.

[ChaosControl]

So, you do not agree with sanctions and treaties then.
For without force, sanctions have no way of doing anything, and if we have a treaty with another country to fight their aggressors we must go to their aid.
You appear to live in a bubble that is untenable.

Correct, I do not agree with sanctions or treaties.

[shrek]

So, you do not agree with sanctions and treaties then.
For without force, sanctions have no way of doing anything, and if we have a treaty with another country to fight their aggressors we must go to their aid.
You appear to live in a bubble that is untenable.


Exactly, ChaoControl, its not as simple as saying we cannot invade other countries. As a nation we only succeed and grow with trade and economy. To have both we must have treaties and sanctions.

And we must interact with other nations. To say we must live within our border is not maintaining peace, its denying reality.

[Greyclouds]

Your right. Note that the US has had peace when it was closest to the lord. It has had turmoil and war when it was furthest from the Lord.

Huh? When was that?

[Greyclouds]

We had turmoil yes, but we also had peace. There was nothing percieved about it. It could have turned to war at any second yes. But it did not because we were strong.

Again Peace is not the absense of turmoil. Peace is ones strength to be able to handle the turmoil as it presents itself.

Korea... Vietnam... West Berlin...

[shrek]

Huh? When was that?

Ever hear of the 2nd Great Awakening. It as from 1790-1840 It was after it ended that we entered the time before and during the Civil War.

After the Civil War we had another turn towards God and Christ. At the turn of the 20th century people turned away again.

Between WWI and WWII we had a nation in turmoil. With most turning to the lord but more and more turning away from God.

Then after WWII we had another wave of Christianity hit. THat lasted but a short time.

[shrek]

Korea... Vietnam... West Berlin...

Your post only proves my point. Yes we had turmoil, Korea, Vietnam and West Berlin were examples of that.

But none of that outside turmoil came to our shores. Yes we had violence and a period of unrest in the the 1960's but we also had peace surrounding it.

[Guild-Sfire]

Your right. Note that the US has had peace when it was closest to the lord. It has had turmoil and war when it was furthest from the Lord.


A very subjective statement.

[Guild-Sfire]

Ever hear of the 2nd Great Awakening. It as from 1790-1840 It was after it ended that we entered the time before and during the Civil War.

After the Civil War we had another turn towards God and Christ. At the turn of the 20th century people turned away again.

Between WWI and WWII we had a nation in turmoil. With most turning to the lord but more and more turning away from God.

Then after WWII we had another wave of Christianity hit. THat lasted but a short time.

Those moments of "peace", only applied to white men.

[UK Glenmont]

With all the Talk of Obama Winning the Nobel Peace Prize it got me to thinking. Can peace be truly achieved and how????????????????

I personally believe Peace can be achieved but not eternally and not simply by refusing to fight.

In my signature line I quote Plato stating that only the dead have seen the end of war. I truly believe in that.

But ending war is not the same as bringing about Peace. Peace can be achieved but only through strength.

When you are strong and everyone knows it few if any are willing to take you on. That maintains peace. But while that may be the case you must constantly work at building your strength. The moment you ease up, others will begin to test your strength to see if they can defeat you.

Peace cannot be achieved simply by refusing to fight for what you believe in. Why? Because even if you stop and are unwilling to fight, those that stand against you will not stop at the same time.

This is not a thread about Obama and whether he deserved to win the Peace Prize. This is about Peace and whether it can be achieved and how. Please debate away. Thanks.

"peace through superior firepower" im thinking curtis e lemay but im wrong most of the time:(

[shrek]

A very subjective statement.

:)) No duh Sherlock, of course it is. There is no way to measure what happens to the nation and if it happens as they are closest to the lord.

[shrek]

Those moments of "peace", only applied to white men.


Guildsfire,

Again peace does not mean a complete void of conflict or turmoil. Of course there was turmoil in the US. But that does not mean we did not have long periods of peace.

[shrek]

"peace through superior firepower" im thinking curtis e lemay but im wrong most of the time:(

"Peace through Superior Firepower" is a very popular saying. And doing an online search I have found many attribute it to Lemay and he may have indeed said it. He was noted for saying many very incindiary comments in his life.

But there is nothing official out there that gives direct credit to Lemay. So I am betting he did not say it.

That being said. I think that comment is spot on.

[Guild-Sfire]

Guildsfire,

Again peace does not mean a complete void of conflict or turmoil. Of course there was turmoil in the US. But that does not mean we did not have long periods of peace.


Those long periods of peace you described....when we were "close to the Lord"...only applied to white men.....

If one was a minority......not so peaceful.

Peace is not just lack of war w/ another country.

[shrek]

Those long periods of peace you described....when we were "close to the Lord"...only applied to white men.....

If one was a minority......not so peaceful.

Peace is not just lack of war w/ another country.

Many Blacks were also close to the lord. Not only White men were Christian.

Your right. Peace is also peace of mind. And being a slave who is also a Christian, means one could have peace even as their life was in turmoil.


That being said you know that the Peace I was talking in the OP is not peace of mind. And yes I know your dieing to pick a fight with me and or knock this thread off track. But am not going to bite.