A brotherhood of man -- Imagine

[Aquila calva]

Imagine (1971)

 

Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today

 

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

 

John Lennon (b. Liverpool, 9 Oct 1940; d. New York, 8 Dec 1980)

 

[SSScout]

A CO (Conscientious Objector) met a friend who was anything but. Their discussion, as it often did, wove round to war and peace and the likely hood of either.

The non-CO said "Well, what would you do if war broke out? Would you want to be thought the last to protect your country?"

The CO replied, " well, if PEACE were to suddenly be declared, would YOU want to be among the first or last to welcome it?"

 

 

YiS

[fgoodwin]

Peace is great, in theory.

 

But in practice, peace must be a unanimous decision. And I would certainly vote for peace. However, it only takes one to make a war.

 

So what do you do with the theory then?

[Trevorum]

 

Happy birthday, John.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He

was and is

a man of rock and roll

sometimes a man of

inner turmoil.

Sometimes a man

with words so sweet, who

laid bitter acts

at our feet

to do with as we pleased.

He allowed us all to see

him from a distance

so close, so personal.

Sometimes we didn't like

what we saw or

what we heard,

yet there were

times where beauty arose

recorded in the clouds

for one and

all.

 

 

FB

 

 

 

[GernBlansten]

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance"

 

Seems to have more meaning today, doesn't it?

[Gonzo1]

I'm not really sure where this thread is going or what Aquila calva wanted to achieve here.

 

Peace does not come about by appeasement, it comes about by victory.

 

The Policy of Containment did not and does not work.

 

We will be victorious. Then, we will return to peace.

Be vigilant but not a vigilante.

 

No soldier really WANTS war, but the soldier is prepared to go to war.

 

When our civilians realize that we really are winning the war, that our elected official have more current and relevant intel than the media, then our civilians would know that we are winning. More people in the US are dying from motor vehicle accidents than US soldiers are dying in Iraq. More than 1,00 soldiers died in a TRAINING MISSION for the D-Day invasion of WW-II

 

Take a good look around next time you're outside, see America around you and thank a veteran.

 

[FScouter]

Somehow I'm not convinced we can win a war by pounding the "enemy" into submission. We would win a lot more by taking a hard look at why we continue to do things that result in people in other countries hating us.

 

[Gonzo1]

Many people say to never discuss religion, politics and abortion, however, we do so here.

 

I am convinced that we can't win a war by talking to the enemy, by trying to learn about them, trying to figure out why they don't like us, by not ticking them off, by not disturbing them, etc.

 

This enemy wants to kill you, me, your kids, our families, our way of life and everything we stand for.

 

If they had their way, we would all be speaking arabic, reading the Koran, praying 5 times a days when the loud speaker tells you it's time to pray, our women would walk around with burquas (spelling) and there would probably not be any BSA. This enemy will not stop until we all convert and the world is a muslic or islamic world.

 

Gonzo

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is the thought of PEACE that is paramount and Johns birthday.

It is not the thought of beating someone into submission simply because one has the power to do so.

It is the thought of helping someone that is being brutalized instead of sitting quietly on the sofa and watching it on TV.

It is the thought of helping someone that is starving instead of endlessly chowing down on large helpings at an all you can eat buffet.

It is the thought of attempting to understand another person instead of accepting some politician's idea of what they mean to say.

Imagine doing things a little differently.

 

How does this apply to an enemy that is sworn to kill you and is willing to hide among the rocks and shoot as you drive by? Are they cowards or do they justifiably fear us because we are unwilling to listen before we shoot back?

 

When the Towers came down everyone cried. Everyone was threatened. Everyone was angry. It was not a liberals against conservatives reaction. It was WE that reacted.

 

As to date, we have shown only one side of ourselves. It is time to at least try a different approach. What we are doing is simply not working.

 

Let's take the people dying on the highway analogy. We don't get angry and kill when more people on the highway die than in the war. We enact laws or try to educate or try to make it so that roads are safer. We don't declare a war or call out the soldiers as the daily slaughter continues. We try to use our heads to reduce the highway problems. Since more people on the highways are dying than in the war, what are we doing over in Iraq? Our attention needs to be directed towards our own streets. It appears that we have lost our ability to discern a proper direction.

 

Imagine different approaches before/during using the one Big Stick approach.

FB

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>As to date, we have shown only one side of ourselves. It is time to at least try a different approach. What we are doing is simply not working.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am really torn over this subject, even as a soldier B-P saw the brotherhood of scouting to be an International Movement that could make the thought of war impossible. That no one would make war against a brother scout. A true soldier understands the horror of war and wants everything to be done so he doesnt have to do his duty, realizing he will when called upon. I have often said in these pages that the US certainly knows how to wage war, we are pretty good at it and I certainly want to be sure we keep that skill. I woudl also like to see if we could learn to wage peace as well as we wage war. Waging peace is something we havent been as sucessful at. The Marshall Plan worked well post WWII. I wonder if the Marshall Plan has more to do with the way Germany and Japan have become our allies post WWII than us smashing them into submission. By the way, the only way to win WWII was to smash them into submission.

 

So, we fast forward to today. I do not see how you can talk to people who want you dead and your way of life erased off the earth. These are not people you can work with and its the reason we will always need a strong military, there will always be those who want us dead and we need a defense against them. So, what do we do? I know a long time ago, I think it was when I first discovered GOOGLE, I found a paper published by the UN that amoung other things estimated the cost of providing every human on earth clean water. I don't know how old the paper was, but it set the cost at 200 billion (I could be worng, but I thought that was the total)and I remember thinking at the time, wow thats a lot of money, no one could do that. But when I see what we spend on war efforts (all justified mind you) I wonder about it. What if we as a nation set as a goal providing clean water to every human on earth, not because it's easy, but because it's hard. Not to do right now, but in some time frame. And then we do it. Now, I have listened to enough talk radio to want to respond to those who think this is merely appeasement, no its not. We talk about wanting to win the hearts and minds of people and then bomb the heck out of them. We worry about what people are told about the US and how the media, national and internatioally distorts our intentions. Its simple (in relative terms)We provide sources of clean water and move on. There are those who will always hate the US, there may not be anyway for us to change them. But every 10 years or so there is a new generation and these the ones we have the best chance with. It would be hard to influence people who grew up staring at USA stamped on their water sources that we are the great Satan. Do we do this because we want to appease? No, we do this because its the right thing to do. We keep out military strong because we have to, but foreign policy is more than be on our side or you are dead

[Gonzo1]

I agree with OGE, making peace is better than making war. We make both well. It would be nice to provide clean water for everyone, but not feasible. I think we could teach other countries how to do it for themselves.

 

We win wars by defeating the enemy, not by holding hands, lighting candles and singing Kum Ba Ya.

 

We currently have thousands of the enemy as "detainees". We clothe them, feed them, give them worship materials, allow them to worship, allow them to bathe, they sleep in quarters equal to our lowest ranking enlisted personnel. They are gaining weight now and ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT!!!!!

 

To my knowledge, only one U.S. Soldier remains unaccounted for, Staff Sergeant Matt Maupin. What has the enemy done with others they captured? THE CHOPPED OFF THEIR HEADS! THEY BRUTALIZED THEIR BODIES AND DRAGGED THEM THROUGH THE STREETS. And now, our wonderful media and democrats in the congress want, make that demand that e grant rights to the enemy. The animals are not U.S. citizens. They are also supposed to get Geneva Convention rights. Geneva Convention rights are for member nations who signed the convention, not enemy terrorists without uniforms, rules, ethics, borders, etc.

 

[BrentAllen]

"Somehow I'm not convinced we can win a war by pounding the "enemy" into submission. We would win a lot more by taking a hard look at why we continue to do things that result in people in other countries hating us."

 

So, FScouter, what were we doing, that we should have stopped, that provoked the '93 World Trade Center attack, the '96 Khobar Towers attack, the '98 African Embassies attackes, the '00 attack on the Cole, and the 9/11/01 attacks? Why were they hating us, from '93 to 2001?

[GernBlansten]

Why were they hating us, from '93 to 2001?

 

Well Brent, I think we should go to the source. Osama said after 9-11 that all those attacks were in retaliation to the US having bases in Saudi Arabia. After 9-11, we quietly closed those bases.