And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
And it sure doesn't help when we kill, what's that number at now, 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians? Doesn't seem to help.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
I have heard the 1 million number thrown out a ton. in the eight years the US was in Iraq there would have had to been 342 deaths a day to make 1 million. That number is completely exaggerated.
Documented civilian deaths from violence 139,207 – 157,741
For the lazy folks....the link below references a few different studies. Iraq Body Count is considered the most conservative of all figures. Note the highlighted paragraph at the bottom, explaining that according to IBC, the violent death rate went down when the war started. In other words, their numbers are obviously complete bullshit.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Iraqi health ministry conducted a survey of 10,860 households in 2007. Ministry employees questioned 10 households in each of more than 1,000 clusters across Iraq's 18 provinces, picked to give a representative sample of the country's population. People were asked to list any family deaths in the two years before the invasion and the first three years after. Some 115 (11%) of the clusters, mostly in Baghdad and the mainly Sunni province of Anbar, could not be approached because of insecurity. The organisers decided to calculate the probable number of deaths there.
The results showed that the national rate of killing between April 2003 and June 2006 averaged just over 120 a day. This was double the number killed during Saddam's last two years in power. The study's figures ignored deaths from accident, disease or suicide. They estimated the civilian death toll in the occupation's first three years as 151,000. The true figure could be anywhere between 104,000 and 230,000 allowing for misreporting, they said. But even the lowest figure on this range is more than twice as high as the IBC's figure of 47,000 for the occupation's first three years. In December 2005, Bush gave a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths.[...]
researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and published in the prominent British medical journal, the Lancet [...]The first survey found at least 98,000 such deaths up to October 2004. The second survey, in the summer of 2006, interviewed a separate but also randomly chosen sample of 1,849 households and found an excess of 655,000 deaths up to June 2006, of which 601,027 were said to be from violence rather than natural causes. This amounts to 2.5% of Iraq's population, or more than 500 deaths a day since the invasion.[...]
The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."[...]
Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000.
Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that- some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do.
All the studies are using different methods....and some include combatants....who determines who are civilians and who are combatants? The opportunities for manipulation make this almost pointless. I think it's a bit messed to try to say 'there hasn't been as many innocent people killed as you claim'. If I was caught slaughtering your family, would you give me any leniency when I claimed to only have killed half of them? Lets not forget that it was widely circulated that deaths due to sanctions in the 90's was pegged at 1mil +.....the Gulf War casualties around a quarter million....toss in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan et al, and some claim the total count approaches 4 million. What were the numbers in Vietnam? Does 4 mil seem outlandish by comparison, when considering the geography and length of conflict? If it's only half, is it any less horrifying?
All the studies are using different methods....and some include combatants....who determines who are civilians and who are combatants? The opportunities for manipulation make this almost pointless. I think it's a bit messed to try to say 'there hasn't been as many innocent people killed as you claim'. If I was caught slaughtering your family, would you give me any leniency when I claimed to only have killed half of them? Lets not forget that it was widely circulated that deaths due to sanctions in the 90's was pegged at 1mil +.....the Gulf War casualties around a quarter million....toss in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan et al, and some claim the total count approaches 4 million. What were the numbers in Vietnam? Does 4 mil seem outlandish by comparison, when considering the geography and length of conflict? If it's only half, is it any less horrifying?
We can count them, but I doubt if we can agree on what caused these deaths...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
We can count them, but I doubt if we can agree on what caused these deaths...
Death and illness due to depleted uranium used in weapons there will surely continue for some time to come on both sides.
Among others, what about the fragile political state this invasion has brought on the Iraqi people, the mess was big when the troops came in, but the mess was even worse when they left...
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
That is very true and to make matters worse, we intentionally carpet bombed civilian populations in North Vietnam (and other places) including hospitals and prohibited North Vietnam from having antibiotics to treat infection. If we want to celebrate our victories we should celebrate the anti-war movement throughout our short history and recognize heroes like Bill Zimmerman who smuggled vials of anti-biotic serum into North Vietnam.
Yeah, sorry Last Exit to disagree so strongly with you on this but we have caused massive amounts of suffering in the world. Others have as well but we have huge amounts of suffering to atone for.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with. What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering.
Besides, history is written by the winners of a war, I strongly believe true objective history is a myth, there are always many sides in a conflict. At the moment a conflict is in progress it is almost impossible to see what is happening, but in hindsight it is truly impossible. Every person, has his or her on perspective on matters, when they live through them, let alone if they are not even a witness of them...
Look at the difference in perspective we come up with on this board, most of us never have set foot in Iraq, so all we have to ad are at best second hand opinions.
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with. What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
You're right - this is the whole point. Fuck up the country then leave. When the pattern includes failed, internationally powerless states, we can't maintain altruistic motives. We have to assume that the failed state IS the motive. People get too caught up in the 'now' crisis (which, more often than not, we had a hand in creating), to realize that there are long term, imperial goals involved. Do people really think the Anglo-American empire has maintained power thru democracy and finance only? or is that just what they want to believe?
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...
So none of those countries listed committed inhumane acts against the human race in the last century? It's just the US?
Yes, the US was involved in several wars during the 1900s. But don't forget about the charity this country has doled out over the same time span. And I don't mean bombing a couple try just to rebuild it. It's not tit for tat. It's just absurd to blame the United states for most of the world's pain and suffering.
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
That was during a war, or conflict, or police intervention, or whatever you want to call it. Bombs get dropped. So that means the US is responsible for all of the suffering in the world today? If that's the case, Germany caused a good bit, no? Maybe japan? How about England or Iran? Mongolia?
As I stated before... It's not about the body count... I don't think it does really matter which side has have the highest death count. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Therefore I strongly believe every act of war is despicable, and costs unnecessary human suffering. The more war action your country has seen, in history the more blood is on your country's hands. And in the last century the US has been a part in many armed conflicts...
So none of those countries listed committed inhumane acts against the human race in the last century? It's just the US?
Yes, the US was involved in several wars during the 1900s. But don't forget about the charity this country has doled out over the same time span. And I don't mean bombing a couple try just to rebuild it. It's not tit for tat. It's just absurd to blame the United states for most of the world's pain and suffering.
No, as you can read in my comment, It's not just the US. I think it's inevitable to have inhuman deeds in every war, on both sides! Where two countries fight two are to blame... And if charity only is involved after a armed conflict, which I don't say it is! I think it is not as effective as it would be without those armed conflicts.
Besides I don't think the US acts alone in these conflicts, most of the time the entire western society is one way or another involved. As are many other parts of the world. I just think that if western society (not just the US) became less arrogant about there believes to always have the truth on their side, and forcing it on other societies with force. There would be much less need of armed conflicts to be involved in!
There will always be pain and suffering in this world, no one can claim it to be just one countries fault. But I don't think resolving conflicts with arms, contributes to lessen this pain and suffering. You can't bring peace with force and arms!
Post edited by Aafke on
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with. What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
I think the investments made on a permanent presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany were worth it. I think making a similar investment in Iraq would have been worth it as well. The MIC you are concerned about makes more money during perpetual conflict and not during perpetual peace. If you invest now in securing the peace there will be less spending on conflict in the future.
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with. What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
You're right - this is the whole point. Fuck up the country then leave. When the pattern includes failed, internationally powerless states, we can't maintain altruistic motives. We have to assume that the failed state IS the motive. People get too caught up in the 'now' crisis (which, more often than not, we had a hand in creating), to realize that there are long term, imperial goals involved. Do people really think the Anglo-American empire has maintained power thru democracy and finance only? or is that just what they want to believe?
I believe it. Again without rehashing the decision to invade please consider that to guys like me "the failed state" is absolutely not the motive. The old liberal/JFK foreign poilcy reasserted in GWB's second inaugural truly believes that a long term US presence is a force for good in the region. Certainly a large investment in both lives and dollars are required but with a great long term result in the end. Again look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea where huge economies with great standard of livings now exist. Some of this spread to adjacent countries in eastern europe and asia over the years due to the presence of peace guaranteed by american security. Millions of people in the third world have been lifted out of poverty and squalor because of this. That doesn't mean the US is absolved from actions but on the whole it's presence can be a win-win for all involved.
Do we all agree that there is more human suffering and less peace when we as a nation do not get involved? The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
But aren't "we" the cause of a lot of the suffering happening in the world?
No.
Read much history? We dropped more bombs on SE Asia than were dropped in the entire WW2...
I'm sure he's read history. I am also sure that even if you are correct more needless suffering occured post-US involvement in South East Asia. The Cambodian Killing Fields should ring a bell.
Of course, the Khmer Rouge was nasty as can be. We waged war over ideology and hung the people out to dry when the killing started in earnest. But, just like with the situation in Iraq right now, we can see a pattern. The U.S. involves itself in a civil war abroad without the support of it's people, mucks the whole thing up, and withdraws leaving a power vacuum in a place that has become more hardened and militarized than it might have been without our involvement. Your solution is to police the world and leave troops in every country we involve ourselves with, my solution is to stay out of other ssovereignty's internal politics to begin with. What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
I think the investments made on a permanent presence in South Korea, Japan and Germany were worth it. I think making a similar investment in Iraq would have been worth it as well. The MIC you are concerned about makes more money during perpetual conflict and not during perpetual peace. If you invest now in securing the peace there will be less spending on conflict in the future.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Iraqi health ministry conducted a survey of 10,860 households in 2007. Ministry employees questioned 10 households in each of more than 1,000 clusters across Iraq's 18 provinces, picked to give a representative sample of the country's population. People were asked to list any family deaths in the two years before the invasion and the first three years after. Some 115 (11%) of the clusters, mostly in Baghdad and the mainly Sunni province of Anbar, could not be approached because of insecurity. The organisers decided to calculate the probable number of deaths there.
The results showed that the national rate of killing between April 2003 and June 2006 averaged just over 120 a day. This was double the number killed during Saddam's last two years in power. The study's figures ignored deaths from accident, disease or suicide. They estimated the civilian death toll in the occupation's first three years as 151,000. The true figure could be anywhere between 104,000 and 230,000 allowing for misreporting, they said. But even the lowest figure on this range is more than twice as high as the IBC's figure of 47,000 for the occupation's first three years. In December 2005, Bush gave a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths.[...]
researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and published in the prominent British medical journal, the Lancet [...]The first survey found at least 98,000 such deaths up to October 2004. The second survey, in the summer of 2006, interviewed a separate but also randomly chosen sample of 1,849 households and found an excess of 655,000 deaths up to June 2006, of which 601,027 were said to be from violence rather than natural causes. This amounts to 2.5% of Iraq's population, or more than 500 deaths a day since the invasion.[...]
The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."[...]
Estimates of the Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam's regime amount to a maximum of one million over a 35-year period (100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign in the 1980s; 400,000 in the war against Iran; 100,000 Shias in the suppressed uprising of 1991; and an unknown number executed in his prisons and torture chambers). Averaged over his time in power, the annual rate does not exceed 29,000.
Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that- some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure. Those who claim Saddam's toppling made life safer for Iraqis have a lot of explaining to do.
Lets not forget that it was widely circulated that deaths due to sanctions in the 90's was pegged at 1mil +.....the Gulf War casualties around a quarter million....toss in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan et al, and some claim the total count approaches 4 million. What were the numbers in Vietnam? Does 4 mil seem outlandish by comparison, when considering the geography and length of conflict? If it's only half, is it any less horrifying?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
The Ultimate goal is world peace, yeah?
It's actually more now
Yeah, sorry Last Exit to disagree so strongly with you on this but we have caused massive amounts of suffering in the world. Others have as well but we have huge amounts of suffering to atone for.
What really grinds my gears is that people on your "side" of the debate rail about government spending while they support the unlimited expansion of one of the most bloated sector of government spending: the MIC.
Besides, history is written by the winners of a war, I strongly believe true objective history is a myth, there are always many sides in a conflict. At the moment a conflict is in progress it is almost impossible to see what is happening, but in hindsight it is truly impossible. Every person, has his or her on perspective on matters, when they live through them, let alone if they are not even a witness of them...
Look at the difference in perspective we come up with on this board, most of us never have set foot in Iraq, so all we have to ad are at best second hand opinions.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
People get too caught up in the 'now' crisis (which, more often than not, we had a hand in creating), to realize that there are long term, imperial goals involved. Do people really think the Anglo-American empire has maintained power thru democracy and finance only? or is that just what they want to believe?
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Yes, the US was involved in several wars during the 1900s. But don't forget about the charity this country has doled out over the same time span. And I don't mean bombing a couple try just to rebuild it. It's not tit for tat. It's just absurd to blame the United states for most of the world's pain and suffering.
Besides I don't think the US acts alone in these conflicts, most of the time the entire western society is one way or another involved. As are many other parts of the world. I just think that if western society (not just the US) became less arrogant about there believes to always have the truth on their side, and forcing it on other societies with force. There would be much less need of armed conflicts to be involved in!
There will always be pain and suffering in this world, no one can claim it to be just one countries fault. But I don't think resolving conflicts with arms, contributes to lessen this pain and suffering. You can't bring peace with force and arms!
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee