This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to thePeace movement article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Anti-war, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Nonviolence, a project which is currently considered to beinactive.NonviolenceWikipedia:WikiProject NonviolenceTemplate:WikiProject NonviolenceNonviolence
Thankfully, my two friends who worked there survived too. Sorry to hear about their coworkers.
However, the description as written is still hawkish, US-centric, and simply not representative of the diversity of the modern peace movement. It's at least as diverse as the anti-globalization movement.
Think about it this way: Bush has something like 85% support for the war in Afghanistan. That suggests that something like 10-15% of Americans are probably in the peace movement. And in other countries, it's a lot higher.
The right question is "who *isn't*?"
I think what differentiates the peace *movement*, though, is willingness to get physically in the way of the process of war with your own living body - definitely the Gandhi reference is relevant.
So are the Dutch activists who invade NATO bases to nab documents relating to nuclear weapons handling, the Greenpeace campaigners who got arrested while protesting Star Wars, etc.
Then there are the professional groups like Science for Peace, Physicians for Peace, etc.
I think it's a pretty focused, disciplined, well-defined, and global movement.
Good, put most of the above in the article!User:Ed Poor
most of this is now there but without naming specific groups inline. also it's not clear it is all that coherent unless yo pick one group to define it likeGreenpeace orSIPRI. also national focus matters, groups have very different histories.
As noted above, there are views of peace thatrequire being ready for war. Other views advocate personal, economic and political liberty as a path to peace. Some see war as a necessary interruption in a human endeavor for peace.
The termpeace movement is itself a rhetorical construction, in part because of the loose nature of the collaborations involved, but also because no modern theory ofethics holds thatwar is in any way desirable, but is rather a "necessary evil" that prevents worse abuses, e.g. ongoingorganized crime, endlesstorture orgenocide of an entire people. What is usually called the peace movement are those who oppose such doctrines as peace through strength.
Proponents of the design, acquisition and deployment of arms tend to believe, in the words ofGeorge Washington's1790 State of the Union Address, that :"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
Peace through strength is based on the idea that in the presence of violent enemies, the best and final deterrent against invasion is the existence of a feared military. They argue that fear is very frequently the only way to deter certain enemies, with whom no amount of negotiation or appeasement will prevent an invasion.
Jane Jacobs observed that shows of strength are often thought to be required to maintain control. There is the argument thatstate power and themonopoly on violence are simply essential.
However, while the above observations might be valid, counting the people who hold such views among "The Peace Movement" would likely empty the term of all meaning and lead to virtually all political factions in a country and also the generals commanding its armed forces and actively conducting war on its behalf as all belonging to that country's "peace movement".
This view was widely influential and even decisive prior to theIraq crisis . The peace movement had only muted criticisms of theNATO bombing of Yugoslavia or theU.S. invasion of Afghanistan. While the war in Iraq drew massive protests, supporters of the invasion continued to state that the war was advancing a Human Security agenda by removing Hussein, who was widely believed to have engaged ingenocide and other related crimes.
It remains to be seen if it is in fact possible to employ a human security-based strategy, while retaining the support ofnation-states and multilateral bodies. Under threats such as newweapons of mass destruction, andnuclear proliferation, policymakers may feel forced to take action more rapidly than diplomacy and peacemaking can offer. The United States president announced a strategy that called for proactive attacks against potentially hostile nations.
R. J. Rummel presents what he considers to be definitive evidence that in recent centuries government-sponsored murder has killed more people than warfare and that increasing liberty decreases conflict. For that reason, some peace advocates say to increaseliberty anddemocracy would be serve the cause of peace.
This tends to be the view of mostRepublican andDemocratic Party power figures in the U.S. In other words, the pursuit of freedom is likely to be seen among political leaders asjustification for war.
I have made this pageCairo Anti-war conference. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at it.--JK the unwise 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) And given that the Ciaro conference page is about and anti-war movment in a non-democratic country I don't agree with this statement form the articlePeace movements in non-democracies are difficult to separate from propaganda efforts of specific regimes. Thus they are not covered in this article.Sure it might be difficult, life is difficult but hay lets give it are best shot... no?--JK the unwise 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
taking the above statement for example, how is it character assassination to call members of the Revolutionary Communist party Communists? If fact most of the antiwar groups still running are in fact owned and opperated by Communist groups. Like ANSWER, which is owned by The Worker's World party and "NOt in our Name" which is owned and operated by the RCP?
much of what the groups said then is word for word what is said now. it was a large part of the isolationist movement in the us that prevented intervention at an earlier time, it was also strong in england and lead to the appeasement of hitler.
External links content to be put into article prose?
Peace Advocacy Poster Collection - A selection of posters from the UBC Library Digital Collections concerned with the advocacy for peace, equality, and harmony during the Vietnam War era
