Tag: Nikki Haley

What even is world peace? Wouldn’t it stop innovation and creativity? Isn’t world peace subjective?

Q&A on Quora

World Peace is subjective. To a child who was moments before sitting chuckling to herself as she amused her imagination with her tatty and dust laden angel who had promised her that all the dreams she could ever had would come true, it was very subjective. After her chuckling came a sound she had never heard before. It was loud, very loud. If pain could be given a name then that was the sound she heard. Her Angel was gone. Instead two mangled bleeding bloody legs remained. She was a victim of collateral damage – that is the term the Generals use so that they don’t scare their own children.

To the Prime Minister or President who ordered the bombing attack World Peace was also subjective. But he or she never felt the pain or the fear whilst in the Vatican shaking hands with the Pope.

I have used the illustration above to show that World Peace is indeed subjective. If you are a victim of the lack of World Peace then your view is very different to those who are not,

War does not innovate. All it does is speed up the rate of technology change that produces more weaponry to kill us with. More weapons are developed in so-called Peacetime than in major conflicts.

World Peace will provide the People of the World with the opportunity to live lives of mutual self-respect. Unfortunately at the moment it is unlikely to occur.

Until the United Nations is reformed to ensure that no sides are taken by all the members of an enlarged Security Council in any conflict then we will never have World Peace.

Is it worth it to sacrifice one million people to create everlasting world peace?

truth

This is my answer to this Q which is on Quora.

If I were the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which is a country with nuclear weapons, which you would have to be equipped with in order to answer the question I would state this:

“Nuclear weapons have only one purpose and that is to kill in the millions. The only deterrent they have been is to ensure those Nations with Nuclear Weapons do not make a sudden decision to use them on other Nations with nuclear weapons.

They did not stop Al Qaeda killing 3000 Americans at 911 and they did not stop the Vietnam War or ISIS invading Syria and Iraq. I would use them at the negotiating table to provide a framework with other countries to discuss and achieve a planned and phased reduction in nuclear weapons. Which is a forum much promised but lacking in delivery.

However, if my only option to end an immediate threat to the United Kingdom from a nuclear military force was to use them specifically to bring an immediate end to the threat I would do so. It is highly unlikely that such a threat would involve one million civilians. It is also highly unlikely that such a situation would occur without any of the United Kingdom’s allies being involved. Therefore the question is too hypothetical to consider a more detailed response”.

I would also state that the United Kingdom as an Island is at much more of a risk from a hostile force than the majority of developed Nations. An island is a strategic target and one which is between Europe and the United States even more so. Unless we are able to ensure we know where every Nuclear Weapon in the World is there can never be a complete nuclear disarmament.

Theresa May did not give that answer. Without thinking May said ‘I would’ to the question by Jeremy Corbyn of would she kill 100,000 with a nuclear strike.

Let us hope that Theresa May is able to ‘think’ when faced with a real situation of a ‘United Kingdom under threat’.

Theresa May does not hesitate to say she would kill 100,000 with nuclear strike

There can be no everlasting Peace that comes about with the death of a million people. The deaths of one million people and more occured in 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 with no everlasting Peace.

1.5 million have died in Afghanistan since 1979. A negotiated Peace for the war weary people of Afghanistan is as distant as it has ever been.

If the World wants everlasting Peace then it must begin with the reform of the United Nations. The Security Council must be expanded, the veto dropped and every conflict dealt with by not taking sides.

 

What military options are there for the US on N. Korea and will they all lead to direct conflict with China as well?

truth

This is my answer to this Q on Quora.

The Military Options may exist on paper but it is fair more likely that they will continue to remain in their role as feasible deterrents rather than positive actions.

Kim Jong Un is not a stupid man. He knows that any conflict with the U.S.A will result in the destruction of his fragile economy. Troops need to eat and they need fuel. Neither will be available once a conflict with the U.S begins.

However, Kim Jong Un has decided to take a shortcut to the membership of the World’s SuperStates and in doing so has to ensure that at some point he sits down with President Trump.

There are over 26 million North Koreans and each one has the potential to buy a product or a service from the U.S.

America’s’ Military has never failed in their duty to the U.S and the World but it is America’s Economy that has made America great. President Trump is well aware that Peace has a Profit and War only a loss.

China has continued to ensure that it sits on the fence – as usual. Nikki Haley the American Ambassador the U.N has been right to remind all the members of the Security Council of their legal and moral responsibility in regard to North Korea. China would never get involved in a conflict with the U.S. They know President Trump would stop all exports to the U.S. They have too much to lose. However, that does not mean that they would not use a display of force should it be required.

What is needed now is for President Trump to publicly show that America is ready to engage North Korea in talks which is no doubt happening with the recent reporting of ‘diplomatic speak’.

Nobody will win in any war with North Korea. The North Koreans will fight to the death. The Pacific region needs stability and it is up to China to broker the talks between North Korea and the United States.

Kim Jong Un is on a deadline. He will not be able to use the nuclear big stick for ever – his economy is unable to support such a large military expenditure. His population needs feeding and though they are loyal they will want more than military parades and anti-America rhetoric to satisfy their growing thirst for knowledge and world involvement.

Whoever sits down with Kim Jong Un will be able to ensure the massive expansion of the North Korean Economy, which will follow any negotiated agreement, is of benefit to both sides of the negotiating table

President Trump has to ensure it will be America who benefit and not Russia or China. It could also be President Trump’s worst nightmare – Iran, who engages with North Korea in negotiations to halt his nuclear weapons expansion.

In an ideal World the U.S. Russia and China would all be involved in talks with North Korea. However, as Aleppo, Syria and Climate Change have illustrated our World Leaders are not the brightest kids on the block.

Is world peace possible, or just a fantasy?

truth

This is my answer to this Question on Quora.

For me personally World Peace is a practical achievable state of World Affairs.

My solution for World Peace is simple and available;

To achieve World Peace we either reform the United Nations or replace it with the following Mandate.

‘To achieve World Peace a renewable World Mandate is required for a Legal Unified Overwhelming World Force, under a single command and without taking sides, to bring to an immediate end by all means available any conflict which immediately threatens the people and stability of the Country and Region involved’.

However, we live in a World where Governments do what is best to keep them in Political Power and not what is best for the World.

Therefore, until such times as such a Mandate exists without the veto then World peace is a fantasy.

nikihaley

What are the problems of culture of peace?

cropped-cropped-truth2.jpg

This is my answer to this Question on Quora.

There is a problem and that is that Peace can not be obtained by Peace. I wish it were not so but unfortunately Peace will only be obtained by the use of a Democratic Unified Legal Overwhelming Force – in effect what the United Nations was intended to be and has seldom ever been.

It is a parallel as to why true Socialism will never exist except as a dream for those who seek to achieve it. Not everybody is honest, unselfish, principled and loyal to a cause. In order to co-exist we must rid the World of Evil and that as God, Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad know is not an easy task.

Before we can achieve Peace, as otherwise mankind will destroy itself, we must first ensure we all want Peace.

To do that the enforced promotion of the culture of Peace must begin in the place which has in modern times sought so hard to bring Peace; the United Nations.

If we cannot achieve Peace through a Culture of informed dialogue then we must obtain Peace by force.

We must remove the barriers to Peace that exist to further Nation’s vested self-interest and promote instead a Conflict resolution that has the world’s mandate to stop any conflict by any means available and without taking sides.

Until we are able to stop all conflicts with the World’s Mandate for Peace then there can be no culture of ‘Peace for Peace’.
united nations

How do you envision your role in building an international cooperation to promote a more peaceful world?

My answer on Quora

I would like to meet with President Trump and Nikki Haley the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

I would like to present to them my proposal for the reform of the United Nations.

The founding principle of my reform is that:

‘All and any conflicts are brought to an end by the United Nations without taking sides in any conflict which requires the physical resources of the United Nations to bring to an end any such conflict’.

This would also require the ‘veto’ vote to be removed from the voting procedure of the United Nations Security Council whose membership should be expanded to include all regions of the World.

The only United Nations process that will bring World Peace is one which is unilateral in its independence from any conflict that the United Nations seeks to end.

That would be my role. A part in reform of the United Nations.

haleytrump

Can we ever have peace?

 

Yes we can. The majority of us live in peaceful co-existence. Yet our lives are made to the order of a few who want the World their way without sharing it.

The United Nations will not work together for Peace. The current structure and voting preferences of the United Nations allow their resources to be used for vested self-interest.

The United Nations requires urgent reform. It is causing more conflict than it is Peace with its inability to take positive action.

Any conflict must be resolved by the United Nations Member Nations without taking sides.

That is the only way we can have Peace.

The only person in the United Nations Security Council who will be able to bring reform is Nikki Haley the U.S Ambassador to the United Nations.

Her speeches to the U.N Security Council are a continual reminder of what is needed to be done if the World wants Peace; Actions not ‘me me’ speeches.

nikihaley