08-01-2016, 04:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2016, 04:46 PM by APeacefulWarrior.)
Yinyang, please tell me you didn't start trotting out a lot of stuff about America just because I mentioned I'm American.
And, the thing is, conflicts like the Iraq War are small-scale stuff, relatively speaking. I'm not defending it or saying it was a good idea, but it was a small-scale conflict compared to what we saw in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Even the most pessimistic body counts for the Iraq War put it at around one million. Yes, that's between 500,000 - 1,000,000 people dead who shouldn't be.
But look at some of the major conflicts of the past. The Khmer Rouge, 2 million. The Vietnam War (or Second Indochina War) was 2-3 million. The Chinese Great Leap Forward was about 30 million. Stalin's purges, 20 million. WWII was around 60-70 million. WWI, 40 million. The Napoleonic Wars, 4-5 million.
Again, this isn't to apologize for Iraq, it's to put things in perspective. Wars in the last few decades have been far less destructive overall than wars of the previous 150 years or so. And they seem to now just be getting smaller and smaller in scale as time passes. The plain truth is that the 21st century has fewer wars, and fewer people per capita involved in war than at ANY OTHER TIME in recorded history.
Honestly. <-- Seriously, at least look at the graphs. Even if there's been a slight uptick lately, it's nothing compared to the 20th Century.
It's just hard to see because the media is so fixated on making sure we're aware of every single death that occurs anywhere on the planet, so it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. There really has, globally speaking, never been a safer time to be alive.
Come on, now. Are you seriously saying you don't believe that big business and other major public figures have significant influence on political decisions, even in autocratic states? A leader that behaves in ways that are likely to crash the economy, or inspire revolt among the population, is likely to quickly find themselves restrained by the second tier of leaders. If not outright deposed. Even among negatives, the instinct for self-preservation is still going to usually outweigh devotion to larger bellicose goals.
Obviously, that may not be true 100% of the time, but by and large, "evil" doesn't mean "stupid." And we're moving towards a point where launching a major war solely for the sake of having a war is becoming plain stupid, even from a negative\egocentric point of view, because there are so many drawbacks. Hell, the Iraq War demonstrated this. It was a fiasco that cost the US far more than it gained, and most people know it. It's a large part of the reason Obama has been so hesitant to involve the US in any more mid-east conflicts except in the most superficial of ways.
And according to Q'uo and nearly every other major positive channelled entity I'm aware of, the Harvest is underway and ongoing, with the 4D changeover happening alongside. In the quote, Ra even specifically referred to this new system gradually expressing itself. We're in the beginning stages now.
This isn't going to be an overnight thing; major global shifts in overall perspectives and attitudes of the population at large will be part of the process. The reduction of open warfare, and the creation of institutions which specifically make peace more self-advantageous than war will continually erode the ability of the negatives and bellicose to create large-scale bloody conflict.
But it's going to be a winding-down, not a "cold turkey" instant cessation of hostilities, which is exactly we've been seeing for the past few decades.
(And with that, I'm going to bed...)
And, the thing is, conflicts like the Iraq War are small-scale stuff, relatively speaking. I'm not defending it or saying it was a good idea, but it was a small-scale conflict compared to what we saw in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Even the most pessimistic body counts for the Iraq War put it at around one million. Yes, that's between 500,000 - 1,000,000 people dead who shouldn't be.
But look at some of the major conflicts of the past. The Khmer Rouge, 2 million. The Vietnam War (or Second Indochina War) was 2-3 million. The Chinese Great Leap Forward was about 30 million. Stalin's purges, 20 million. WWII was around 60-70 million. WWI, 40 million. The Napoleonic Wars, 4-5 million.
Again, this isn't to apologize for Iraq, it's to put things in perspective. Wars in the last few decades have been far less destructive overall than wars of the previous 150 years or so. And they seem to now just be getting smaller and smaller in scale as time passes. The plain truth is that the 21st century has fewer wars, and fewer people per capita involved in war than at ANY OTHER TIME in recorded history.
Honestly. <-- Seriously, at least look at the graphs. Even if there's been a slight uptick lately, it's nothing compared to the 20th Century.
It's just hard to see because the media is so fixated on making sure we're aware of every single death that occurs anywhere on the planet, so it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture. There really has, globally speaking, never been a safer time to be alive.
(08-01-2016, 03:47 PM)YinYang Wrote:PeacefulWarrior Wrote:Even the most autocratic of dictators still has to have an apparatus backing them and tacitly approving of their actions for them to be able to run their country.Do we live on the same planet?
Come on, now. Are you seriously saying you don't believe that big business and other major public figures have significant influence on political decisions, even in autocratic states? A leader that behaves in ways that are likely to crash the economy, or inspire revolt among the population, is likely to quickly find themselves restrained by the second tier of leaders. If not outright deposed. Even among negatives, the instinct for self-preservation is still going to usually outweigh devotion to larger bellicose goals.
Obviously, that may not be true 100% of the time, but by and large, "evil" doesn't mean "stupid." And we're moving towards a point where launching a major war solely for the sake of having a war is becoming plain stupid, even from a negative\egocentric point of view, because there are so many drawbacks. Hell, the Iraq War demonstrated this. It was a fiasco that cost the US far more than it gained, and most people know it. It's a large part of the reason Obama has been so hesitant to involve the US in any more mid-east conflicts except in the most superficial of ways.
Quote:The Ra quote you referred to is applicable after harvest.
And according to Q'uo and nearly every other major positive channelled entity I'm aware of, the Harvest is underway and ongoing, with the 4D changeover happening alongside. In the quote, Ra even specifically referred to this new system gradually expressing itself. We're in the beginning stages now.
This isn't going to be an overnight thing; major global shifts in overall perspectives and attitudes of the population at large will be part of the process. The reduction of open warfare, and the creation of institutions which specifically make peace more self-advantageous than war will continually erode the ability of the negatives and bellicose to create large-scale bloody conflict.
But it's going to be a winding-down, not a "cold turkey" instant cessation of hostilities, which is exactly we've been seeing for the past few decades.
(And with that, I'm going to bed...)