I must read the book - Kurlansky is an interesting writer. I wonder if he mentions Costa Rica, which abolished its army in 1948 and since then has been an oasis of calm in central America (They also limit all politicains to a single 4 year term - sounds like heaven!) The military budget is now spent on culture and education and internal security (ie the police). Heaven again!

I came across the book yesterday in Readings Carlton.
I sat down and read much of it.
It was/is superb.I was also impressed by the statements at the end of the book re the causes and dynamics of violence.
This essay

1. www.dabase.net/openlett.htm

affirms Kurlansky's carefully argued thesis. It gives a very sobering description of the state of the world.
It was written in response to the Kosovo crisis (when WW3 nearly started) and reworked in response to the atrocity in New York.
Its message/calling is quite stark: Choose peace or you WILL inevitably destroy yourselves (all of you) and possibly render the planet uninhabitable!

Candide, I wonder if he also mentions the Solomon Islands, which has no standing army, but has had serious internal conflict for a decade. Does that sound like heaven too?

Simplistic solutions are dangerous.

I find the article an overly simplistic pacifist dialogue lacking any real justification.

Firstly, avoiding war at all costs is not a strategy. Chamberlain proved this with his policy of appeasement in the 1930's. More recently, the world has stood by and watched genocides in Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe (which combined exceed the death toll of the Holocaust) unfold as international law professor's debate whether state intervention is 'legitimate'. When America did intervene in Somalia, the UN stood watching with 'I told you so' on the end of its tongue as brave Americans were dragged through the streets.

No doubt somebody will pipe up with the popular catchcry 'they were only there for the oil' (or whatever). But is being there only for 'the oil' really worse than not being there at all because one is clinging to ideals that just don't stack up? The UN said Rwanda wouldnt be allowed to happen again-since then its happened again at least twice and we all pledge a $1 to the cause and feel a little better about ourselves.

It would be nice if one day the concept of what's right and wrong wasn't muddied by useless dialogue. The world needs a little humanity reinforced by intestinal fortitude.

Peaceniks!
Peace on the lot of you - dreamers blind to reality.
To quote from cartoonist Emile Mercer from half a century back, addressing the "make love, not war" brigade: he had his "Gravy Man" jumping up and down while waving his walking stick, berating them - "it's you lot who are the cause of it. Making love makes babies. Too many babies makes war" - or similar words.
There is no hope for peace breaking out until Homo sapiens stabilises - both in numbers and in economics.
If we can't stop the increase in people, both those in need and those having indulgent lifestyles, then wars are inevitable.
if we are unable to get off the bandwagon of economic growth, accompanied as it essentially is by growing energy and resource use, then the friction from it will spark wars. Everlasting.
A few thousand years back, the Greek play Lysistrata aired concerns about war. Yet it continues to be our ugly companion. Possibly the only thing not tried for achieving peace is stabilisation. Maybe it is time to give it a go; worth attempting to find out how to give it a go.

Yes in the 60's we used to make love not war, sadly there was no profit for the weapons industry in that approach. It is much easier today, just pick a group who can't defend themselves, illegally invade on a notion of weapons of mass destruction, and away we go the weapons industry is back in business, employing people, making a profit. Who really owns the weapons industry I wonder...ummmm