If peace is the natural order of things, why are we always fighting and working to achieve it? If one is hungry and wants food, they must plant a seed. To plant a seed you need a fertile place to grow it, so you have to pull a weed out of the fertile ground and kill it in order to make room. If you want your plant to grow you must water it, so you take action and motion to supply your plant water. When your plant bears its fruit and it's time to harvest, do you take action and go and harvest it, wait for the fruit to fall off on its own and then attempt to recover it before it rots from the dirt and worms, or wait for someone/thing else to happen by your plant first with its fruit and harvest it for themselves?
You must live in a young or privelaged life to think that sitting back and doing nothing brings about more peace than if you proactively work to make it happen. Hold out both your hands and in one hand hope for your dreams to come true and then hold out your other hand and hope for nothing and see which hand you end up more with quicker. When you finally get too hungry or bored of sitting there with open and empty hands you'll join the rest of us who get up everyday to go out into the world to make a difference and work for a living to make our dreams and peace happen.
Peace in the sense that nothing moves. I was trying to explain that without humans (assuming we aren't involved with outer space) there would be no war. Actually, if nobody (assuming that nobody means absolutely nobody) on this planet moved an inch, how could there be war?
In a quote from a another poster here "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity". In essence, the more you fight, the less peace there is.
However, my idea holds up only in the theoretical sense, for if nobody moved an inch, we'd all be dead due to lack of water. I accept the idea of defending borders, but a preemptive war should only be pursued if the other option is demise.
-Penguin
