Overheard On The BBC

While discussing some recent unrest in Eastern Europe, the commentator on BBC’s “Newshour” (VT Public Radio) stated: ”we must bring peace even if we do it by force”

Huh?

Comments | 5

  • Doubt it is the best doublespeak option

    “I promise to stop hitting my little brother, even if it requires more punching him in the arm. Okay, mom?” No mother would buy that line of bull.

    Peace thru force seems like a common myth we hear it so much. I bet they have it backward and we really gain power and force by being peaceful (but, also never try this… we always try force.)

    Ignore it and it will go away is another approach we could take. Or, solve the problem at the root cause. Or, stop contributing to making the situation worse.

    Peace through force = vegetarianism via cheeseburgers. There are better options.

  • To secure for themselves survival, security, safety and serenity

    I have keep reminding people to better study history. A better understanding of history shows us how to better understand ourselves.

    Historically, the only reason why we have peace is because we have war. If there was no war there is no definition of peace. All societies have used war to secure for themselves survival, security, safety and serenity.

    If there was a society or world that lived entirely without war, and never knew war, that society would not necessarily define itself as peaceful.

    As an operational species humans are essentially the top predator on this planet. They are more so because they explicitly prey on their own kind.

    • opposites

      and vice versa:

      If there was no peace there is no definition of war. If we didn’t have peace, we wouldn’t have war. Semantics, of course, but the logic follows.

      Three cheers for truth tables in Geometry class!

  • Sort of like...

    “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”

Leave a Reply