Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Not allowing them to go to war. That’s how we stop them. No government, no government and it’s not matter who they are and where they come from, have the right to go to war for any reasons. So when one particular country in an oppressed situation, that oppressor should be removed not the people being killed. You and I we have no right to kill anybody. That a life given to us by the Creator. Nobody and I say nobody has a right to remove any life anywhere. So it does not matter what kind of government, it does not matter where it is, it doesn’t matter when, but they should not, and they have no right to take you to war. I hope I answered your question. It is your responsibility as it is mine to stop our governments to do any act of killing of a human being anywhere else. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I think the question of how do we stop governments from going to war raises the question of who has the political power to affect government policy, who has the power to affect decisions of who is going to war. And there, I think we have to look at the role that working people can pay in confronting an empire, confronting the military/industrial complex. Because, ultimately, war relies first of all on the manufacture of the ammunitions in a war and those ammunitions cannot be manufactured if the workers in the war industries refuse to manufacture those ammunitions. And then, they also rely on people to carry out the actions of going to war, rely on soldiers, rely on troops to fight wars of profit, an empire. And the real power of stopping war ultimately lies with the working-class people, who in the industries of war and outside of the industries of war can organize to break down the institutions that drive us to war. They can refuse the orders to fire, they can refuse to ship ammunitions, they can refuse to fund the purchase of ammunitions, they can refuse to support the politicians that take us to war.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: I think we can stop our government from going into war by voting or choosing dedicated and devoted person who can really think about his country, choosing correct leader, correct leader. [inaudible]

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Well, when we saw the aggression in Iraq started with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, millions of people marched around the world to the extent that even New York Times and Kofi Annan called this anti-war movement or actually the peace movement, basically the other superpower. And this superpower in some ways, one could say, did not stop the war. But at the same time, when millions of people marched on the day in February, we sent a very clear signal that this war is not just, that this war does not have the approval of humanity. It is an unjust war, it’s an act of aggression, it’s an immoral invasion and today an immoral colonization of a country. But in terms of other ways that we can also stop the war not just by taking away the credibility, we have to gain over the credibility from the Bush administrations by denouncing its actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq. But we do know that war has become a way of oiling the wheels of this economic system, which -- the invasion of Iraq is really about the interest of the Bush administration. And I feel one way to deal with it is also through a preemptive strike. No, I am not talking about Bush’s idea of a preemptive strike; but if it is the way to grease the wheels of an economic system, what if each one of use refuse to go to work that day? What if we bring the economy to a standstill? What if teachers say we will not be teaching in the classrooms, but we will be out in the streets with our children, with the school students? That can say no to this war. What if the people who run the railways say, “Well, no train is going to move which is going to allow further movement of goods?” What if the truckers say that no truck is going to cross the border till this war stops? What if our soldiers walk away saying, “We will not fight this unjust war.” So I feel like what we have to do is launch a preemptive strike around the world when the powers and the superpowers decide that they want to go and launch war so that they can continue and build their empires further.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: This question of we, how do we stop our governments-- in democracy ostensibly, there is power to the people and people do have power. Individuals have great power, as we’ve witnessed by individuals like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, His Holiness Dalai Lama. Individuals – powerful individuals who speak from their individual power and can really in conscientious objections stand out and speak out. So, when we recognize the enormous power of true individuals, awakened individuals who understand our deep connectivity with reality and the power each of us has, clearly people-power, standing together in connectivity can stand up to governments and confront and make a difference to the governments of runaway policies that enter into war. We can see this in the United States today. That we have entered to a war in response to so-called terrorism. And there are many people, not only in USA but around the world, who find this war objectionable, unjust and ill-founded and ill-conceived. And not the way to go, not the way of the future, it’s not going to solve the problem. So, that this is the question before us, in terms of can people stop a government from going to war. I think history has shown that we can and now we recognize that we must. People must come together and use people-power, not only within countries but across the borders. As citizens over this planet unite and discover our collective powers across all borders, there will have to be an intervention to stop governments from continuing war. And when we talk about departments of peace, there is talk now about seriously forming departments of peace, powerful UN that really has teeth and power to intervene in this way. We will have forces to really confront governments, runaway governments, and put an end to government initiating wars and continuing through wars.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: As responsible global citizens, we really have to understand the commitment of our governments to war. For example, how is your government committing your tax dollars, to the mechanisms and machineries of war or to education, to public health? And, for example, in the United States, we have a disproportionate amount of our tax dollars going into our defense budget, and for 2007, we have allocated approximately $260 billion for our defense budget. And it comprises over 50 percent of our entire budget, whereas the funds that we have committed for education and for public health issues are substantially less, so it gives our government the huge capability to be able to go to war, fund war, and promote war. So we really need to look at the commitment of the government and the responsibility of the citizens to really understand how government is functioning and whether or not we are supporting the political leaders that promote war. And it also is incumbent upon the citizens to utilize the power of their vote and to be educated voters as to who they are putting into office and really study the platforms of the leaders that we put into office, and to see what their commitments are -- to peace or to war. And to see where their values lie as to how they would commit our tax dollars, where they would commit our tax dollars. So we have to be responsible to stop war at its very inception, and not promote the [audio ends].

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: It is quite an interesting fact that there has never been a war between two democracies. One can think about it for a long time and try to find some counter evidence, but there has been no war between two democracies. There have been wars between two dictatorships, or between a dictatorship and a democracy, but never between two democracies. That means we need democracy. This is a means to avoid war. But why have there been no wars between democracies? Because democracies are influenced by the puplic opinion. And the public does not want war. The public opinion in a democracy cannot so easily be influenced by official propaganda as the public in dictatorships. In a democracy where everything is open, where you have freedom of speech, where you can follow the world news, can read newspapers, can listen to opinions, can be of different opinions, it is not easy to create effective propaganda, especially when this propaganda is to lead into a catastrophic war. That is why the population in democracies is able to prevent wars, and why it has been impossible for two democracies to wage war against each other. Thus, if we have really democratic governments, and this only depends on us, we will probably be able to prevent war.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: The government should be a representation of the people. If we don’t want go war; our government shouldn’t go to war. In America, there was a complete suppression, a complete dilution of the people. A complete takeover of what people believed we are going to work for; by the media, by many different organizations, and by our government, the media, campaigns, the military. So people weren't necessarily in opposition, actually believed that we were going to work for a reason that needed to be going to work for. So, the voice that was spoke out to the government in protests and demonstration, were thought of as the minority. And yet truly, if the truth of the cause for the war, of why we’re doing the things we’re doing, was available to all. It would not be the minority, it will be the majority. And this is what the government should represent. The government should represent the majority of the people and therefore the majority of the people want to go to war, the government will go to war. If they don’t want to go to war they won’t go to war. How can we stop our government? By having a true representative government, and if you have a problem that should be a part of the solution, part of the solution.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: This is a very interesting question. There's always a feeling that is almost impossible to stop our governments to go to - from war. But I think the answer, we, you, as the general public, you have the answer. Because we are the one who decide, with our suffrage, who is gonna be your leaders. And I think the answer we can find it in history if we go back to the Ancient Greek times, when for you to become to be a politician, was a sense or issue of value. The values of justice and truth. It was an honor. You become to be a politician because of honor, and not because of power, or because of economics. So I think we have the right now to really insure our leaders, to have the proper leaders that can really take humanity in the right direction. That's what we need to stop our governments from going to war. Have better leaders. Leaders - visionary leaders that really can see that peace and justice are a big - are very important conditions for economic growth, and economic wealth, and to have peace and harmony around the world.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: Human population, citizens, and residence can allways try to oppose bad and especially agresive politic of there own government. I believe that peace movement like hippies in America helped ending the war in the Vietnam. Nowadays American society is flabby in that sense, so some author or sensible group of people that are signing some petition have no good chance to stop or change current violent and retro politics. In Serbia similarly a part of people tried to draw down Milosevic’s politics, however nowadays Milosevic’s politics is being continued but most of the people are silent and some even agree with the situation and blames others for own bad destine. Everything depends on conciseness and wish of the people to prove there own lifes.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well, there’s probably two ways of looking at this question; probably many ways, but there’s another way of looking at it in a way. I guess the other way is by exposing the lies, the hidden agendas; the self-serving corruption that basically underlies the stated reasons for going to war. Often what politicians tell us are the reasons why, often are facts just like layers of an onion that expose a deeper agenda, and we’ve seen that in the current war in Iraq; layers and layers of lies by deceitful and ignorant people, scheming people. I believe we have to hold town hall meetings. We’ve got to create a truly free press and that’s being challenged all over the world; again, by corrupt governments and the money behind the government and the people in government. Maybe educating our children in nonviolent communication. I guess overall returning to a really well-informed, truly democratic populous. We also stop our governments from going to war by collectively deciding to end poverty, so that poor people aren’t seduced and manipulated into joining the military. I note that in America where I live that many that join the military say, “Well, I can’t afford to go to college. The military promises me a college education. That’s why I’m joining up.” I think that is disgraceful and it’s a practice that I think has got to end. Maybe there’s another reason, too, about stopping governments going to war, when we really collectively become more peaceful within ourselves. Enough people, a critical mass of people achieving their inner peace, maybe that will create the possibility for outer peace. Do we get the governments we deserve? Probably.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Catherine David: There are many ways but to be not too creative I start with the easiest way. Its the way of demonstration. And it is quiet interesting that on the beginning of the manoeuvres against Iraq, the streets of the great capitals of Europe were full of people and that these demonstrations of power ceased from the moment on as the war began which is very alarming. That brings up the question of discernement of people as to be consequently political means to continue and even augment the demonstration as war has began and as it seem to become a war which is notably injust and awful for the iraqi people. And we have to wonder that the streets were empty as the worst case became reality: Guantanamo, the secret ,,renditions'' of individuals of which we don't even know their names, where they are and if they are still alive. So thats a totally terroristic behaviour which justified enormous manifestations. So thats something I do not understand at all. Furthermore what means to protest against your governement which goes inderictly to war, by intermediairies or by intercessing?How do I know that France was not engaged in Iraq? How do I know that Germany was not engaged in Iraq? I only know it about the Englishmen. So things are quiet complicated as our governments go to war without doing it apparently or if they act by intermediairy countries but there are ways to exert pressure on them but first of all we have to answer the question why people protest at the beginning and stop the manifestations rapidly and demobilise themselves rapidly.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think the first thing is not to use violence against our government, but to demonstrate and to oppose; and also if you can, if you have a brother who's a soldier, you have a sister who's a soldier, talk to them. Let them maybe say we sick. Convince them. Maybe try to broke the roads that they were used to drive the war machines. Try as much-- take it personal. Be courageous. And show your government that the war is not needed. Show your government that that road which is built for daily place to pass going to work, is not and should not be used to be taking the machines of war. Try everything you can. Convince the soldiers if you can. Try to write your politician. Give them your meaning; give them your reasons why you are against the war.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: It is a fallacy is to believe that human history can be released easily from martial conflicts. A view into the universal history of human existence for thousands of years shows regrettably that the phases of the military conflicts endure longer than the phases of peace by far, if one thinks of the 30-years war, one thinks of the plague phases in the Middle Ages, which could be partly martially solved. Only the facts that we do not have direct military conflicts since 1945 in Western Europe and North America more, entice to the acceptance that the world in peace lives since 1945. That is however not so, empirical, the first states of the world has only its wars exported to the horn of Africa, to Somalia, to Angola, to Viet Nam, after Kambodscha, into the Congo, there are many examples. The dead ones in military conflicts actually exceed the dead ones after 1945 in 2. World war, which one may regret, but that is empirical fact, i.e. there is no peace in the world since '45, it gives exported wars and it is fallacy to believe that peace prevails world-wide. The millions of dead are hardly more counted. Military conflicts outweigh the time of the peace and if one dares no material-political argument here, we will become utopians.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Well, I think the first thing we have to do is to try to convince fellow citizens that they can easily be duped by elected officials based on appeals of fear to justify war. The United States just recently went to war based on lies, not just bad evidence, for the set of elites in Washington who were intent on going to war and finding any justification they could. I think fellow citizens around the world have to attempt to be truthful with themselves and fellow citizens and fellow human beings around the globe and say that we can, in fact, have a public conversation, shape the climate of opinion in such a way that diplomacy, that negotiation constitutes the primary means by which we wrestle with conflict; and when there is very, very special conditions under which war must take place, it must remain under intense scrutiny with the free press to raise questions to political elites, with fellow citizens raising their voices, to constitute conversations, public dialogs that have questions and interrogate the great process by which we go to war and the conditions under which we remain at war. But, this has to do with the kind of democratic awakening that is required around the world to attempt to trump any possibility of war.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Often times it is the government who creates war, who engages war in one way or another sacrificing their citizens. For me, I have just one short message to the government: let’s pray for our government who are promoting war, because they don’t know what they are doing. They are promoting war, engaged in war, using their citizens as going to wars. And these are the things that for me, the reasons why we should pray for our government promoting and engaging in war for peace, for they don’t know what they are doing. We have seen a lot of governments who have been promoting and engaging their citizens in war, and it’s the civilians, it’s the soldiers who are being sacrificed. So instead of engaging war, why don’t we pray for the government to engage in peace building?

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas