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

Bill Joy: I think the first thing we need to do to try to prevent more wars to promote understanding between peoples. Student exchanges, travel, true knowledge documentary films that show the beauty and the diversity of different cultures and promote understanding are incredibly important at a time when political forces are trying to use fear of others to stay in power and promote their own agendas. Mass media has given us unprecedented ability to abuse that channel to create propaganda, to whip people up into hatred and fear. I think what we have to do is use the media as we have access to them to promote instead hope, hope for a better world, hope for peace, hope for creativity, innovation, education, meeting people’s needs. There’s many, many good things we can do and we can do them together. The secret is to make sure that people understand what’s at stake, that wars very rarely solve anything and really encourage people to have dialogue and understanding instead. And provide the economic funding from countries that were spending so much on the military to instead reduce tension in the world.

by Bill Joy

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

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

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Well, this is the part where I think one can break the law. You can stop your government about going to war by not going to war. Governments go to war with citizens that are put in uniform and given arms to go and fight, and if we as citizens feel that that war is unjust, then, we don’t want to be part of it. We just don’t go to war, and that’s maybe the consequence. There are probably consequences in different countries, different consequence one has because of it, but I feel very strongly that if a government has decided to go to war and we don’t want that war, that is the way where we as citizens can use our right to break the law, I might say, and not to take part in that.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: When a government wants to go to war, it goes to war no matter if the people want it or not. In case the people doesn’t want a war it has the possibility to gather together in masses on places or even in the whole town. But we, the people, don’t have weapons, so how to avert if it’s the government who has arms? We can [rinvescar], have public manifestations, scream, struggle, shout and ask other countries for solidarity but we cannot avert a government from going to war. Take the United States for example, the people was against a war in Vietnam but nonetheless it was not possible to avert the government from doing so. The government killed thousands of people, thousands of soldiers, thousands of Vietnamese, of Asians. And what happened? Maybe that the people will have the strength one day to build up –step by step- a national and international policy of prohibition. There should be a higher tribunal to avert those types of violence. The governments must be made more sensitive for what the citizen wants. So if our country goes to war against another country - it’s also our responsibility, we still have the social power as well as the power to chose. Otherwise we also are being violated.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Well, the prevention of war is an impossibility. You can slow down governments from going to war, when you have a universal draft and when it’s going to be the children of the politicians who themselves are actually going to go to war. The wars are traditionally fought by the poor and the uneducated. When you start having the rich and the educated dying in the wars, somehow that seems to be one of the greatest deterrents. I would like to see the Bush twins in Iraq right now and then maybe we will be pulling out our troops a lot sooner.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: How do we stop our governments from going to war? Well, the first thing I think of is I think back to the 1960s when we said make love, not war. When young men burned their draft cards and actually succeeded in ending the draft. There was a big reaction to the successes, the kind of democratic successes of the 60s because it gave rise to the neocons, to very, very heavily funded think tanks for the right wing to regain power in my country. And of course it has a great deal of power in the world as well. Let me see, am I getting away from the question here? So the problem with war is that it offers economic opportunity where it doesn’t otherwise exist for young people, especially for young men, especially for the less enfranchised minorities. I don’t believe that any nation could raise a serious army today if young people had viable alternative economic opportunity to being soldiers going into the military. So the only way I see for getting governments to stop going to war is to work more and more on economic justice for all people, to recognize that no healthy living economy can exist when some people can’t get work and others can hoard immense wealth. No natural biological system that’s well evolved functions that way. Imagine in your own body if there were economic inequity in some cells or some organs could exploit the rest of the body for their own benefit. You wouldn’t last very long and neither will our human economies if we can’t find a way to create more economic equity.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 12:25:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: If you have a dictatorship, you can’t stop it. If you have a democratic government, you can stop it by raising your voice, by voting, by protesting, by demonstrating.

by Ervin Laszlo