Si vis pacem, or is there universal peace?
In
Log in if you are already registered
Dear Reader!
Sometimes a diseased mind cannot distinguish one from another, and here you will not find a conversation in its common sense, but something extremely odd. Both Dr. Fox and Sir Popper are here, enchained into one text.
The topic is war & peace, but main point is that everything is biased, and the way a person comprehends something (including such a positive idea of peace) depends mainly on one’s point of view, despite the message. Even if this person is good at reading between the lines (as, I suppose, you are, my Reader), usually he or she chooses only one set of these lines, but it doesn’t mean, that there are no other ones.
Today, on the verge of a new conflict, it is becoming obvious that the US, as a part of the international community that search peace and democracy, not wage ruthless wars that undermine international law and human rights, realizes the possible destruction of such states, which is not desirable; still some believe it is inevitable to use force or coercion in the Syrian situation. We understand that there are powers and persons who think that war means something that is more than destruction – there is a need for justification. But we know that peace is beneficial for us, the humanity, in many ways. I sincerely believe that war will be forgotten on Earth someday, as such is the human nature, struggling and fighting the idea of war, biased by medieval politics, that still prevail, will be gone. We have hope while the global powers lead the world. (do they?)
Humanitarian intervention is already a (sorrowful) precedent. It’s not that I suppose that military actions suffice anyone’s interests. I don’t think that everything can be solved by the use of force. While looking for peace, be prepared - you should consider peaceful negotiations as well. It is unwise to assume that the powers that be wage wars because they can win; due to their power, I believe that they can bring some change. Tolerance and mutual understanding, such simple ideas of tolerance and understanding that others consider to be just words, without any serious power or institution supporting them, useless, but they show the new course of human evolution. One can say: “Human nature have changed very little throughout the centuries”. Well, I believe that we are not those blood-thirsty animals, and I can’t say that we are driven solely by egoism, survival instincts and mutual mistrust, and we can’t cooperate. I hope I’m not the only pacifist who does not think he or she is the one of the war-craving individuals, feeding on chaos, who declare that humanity is doomed to kill itself someday in the agony of its own ignorance: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”.
Many Latin-speaking thinkers are adorable, but we should move on and stop preparing for war every time we want peace, fighting in the name of freedom, stop clinching to the past that brought so much pain and suffering. If we do not even try this – we would be dead as millions before us, during any period of human history, millions, who burned in the fire of their wrath and arrogance, would be just as us. War, force, coercion, power are effective means for many desperate aims, but can they suit for the future welfare of humankind, for the world of our children? I doubt anyone can change fast, and the rivers of our planet will still be full of blood, but when I contemplate about progress and evolution, I want to say as loud as I can: “Hear me, human, and remember the good-ol’ saying ‘si vis pacem, para bellum’. I hope that it, the idea of a ‘good’ war, will be replaced someday by
‘si vis evolutionis, para pacem’!”
If you still think that there is only one way to read this text, try reading between the lines. 
