Lennon - Give peace a chance

Give Peace a Chance
- John Lennon

Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

(C'mon)
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Minister, Sinister, Banisters and Canisters,
Bishops, Fishops, Rabbis, and Pop Eyes, Bye bye, Bye byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

(Let me tell you now)
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Flagellation, Regulation,
Integrations, mediations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna
Hare Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
(Repeat 'til the tape runs out)

I just want to remind everyone that turning the other cheek is not always the SMART thing to do.

All it got John Lennon was being shot in the back!

Originally posted by traderonwallst
I just want to remind everyone that turning the other cheek is not always the SMART thing to do.

All it got John Lennon was being shot in the back!

Well Jesus turned the other cheek and he's worshiped by billions.

Edit: Btw, what has this got to do with NWO?

[edit on 22-10-2007 by intrepid]

The rationale of your thread is mind-boggling!

Is it just in your nature to be annoyingly controversial?

Peace

I wish I was the guy that shot him. That Hippie sure was provoking.

Thats just wrong! Go stand in the corner before I get the soap out!

reply to post by intrepid



Sorry, did not realize I was still in that section when I posted it. I was bored this morning browsing the boards.

Please move to correct board.

reply to post by Dr Love


Why is it mind boggling? Was he not for giving peace a chance? Turning the other cheek? Where did it get him? I just want people to think about it. So many times I have gottne into arguements with family or friends at events over the government and military or wars and everyone seems to think that the military is never the right response. They always end their arguements with that phrase. "Give peace a chance". When I ask them where did they get that quote, (I already know) they say John Lennon said it. When I remind them he got shot in the back.......They just start to yell, and debate goes out the window.

Just wanted to know where everyone else stood on that theory. All opinions are wlecome, except those stupid ones about killing him because he was a hippie. Please refrain from diminishing what the man stood for, its just the the nature of the people here on ATS. Also, don;t shoot me for bringing the topic tolight. Just looking for opinions.

Well if you really want to get into the thick of it, maybe we should start looking at when, exactly, peace has been given a chance.

Diplomacy being the attempt at peace: Traditional diplomacy is a process of negotiations, Back and forth greviances, placing your hand on the scabard, but never pulling the sword out fully. Both parties leave the table not completely satisfied with the end result, but at least avoiding war.

The newer version of Diplomacy: One country issues a set of demands. These damands are seen as non-negotiable and often contain sections that no soverign nation would ever agree to. The resulting "no" from the accepting country is treated as evidence of not wanting to negotiate at all. Leaders announce they are losing patients and the bombs start falling. (Point in case, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Iraq (Gulf I) )

(the above is paraphrased from Dr. Michael Parenti from a talk on the Kosovo Conflict.)

Maybe if we had actual diplomatic attempts at peace in this world, we would see a lot less warfare.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by InSpiteOf]

How many times does it take to go to the UN concerning grievances before you consider negotiations to be over and action is allowable?

reply to post by traderonwallst


Diplomacy takes time, no matter what the situation. Just because something is taking a while doesnt mean diplomacy shouldn't be attempted first. Rash military action leads to high casualties.

In the last 50 years, how many times has the US administration(s) gone to the UN concerning a possible conflict and followed the mandate? How many times have they completely avoided the international theatre of diplomacy and just did as they pleased?

Edit to add: I understand in the time of a conflict, when people are dying, action needs to be taken. But instead of sending in a rapid deployment team of the USMC; why not deploy UN peacekeeping forces and start negotiating a cease-fire between the sides? There are no easy answers, but you have to attempt to promote peace both with your rhetoric, and your actions.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by traderonwallst
How many times does it take to go to the UN concerning grievances before you consider negotiations to be over and action is allowable?

As many times as it takes to resolve a situation without resorting to killing.
War must be an absolute, unavoidable last resort.

War should only be an absolute, unavoidable last resort if it means there is no chance of any fellow American having their blood spilled. If there is even a threat against an American, i favor pre-emptive strikes. I know that labels me a war mongerer, but I don't treasure my fellow Americans. All of them, event he liberals.

haha

is that you sigmund?