Rafael Leyre wrote:
> Art <arty_faque@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<313ivkF368u56U1@uni-berlin.de>
> ................
> 
>>However, it is important to note here that a "peaceful" society is 
>>governed by laws. And a peaceful society is thought to be /kept/ 
>>peaceful /by/ its laws. And laws are nothing, if they are not first and 
>>foremost enforced by threat of violence.
>>
> 
> In a peaceful democracy laws are enforced by the threat of violence of
> a police force, itself answering to civil law, acting under government
> control, with the approval of ninety percent of the citizens onder
> their surveillance.

I have no idea where you get 90% from, but basically your argument boils 
down to this: Violence is okay, because, well, HE said...

> I don't think any party is against this.
> I protest reasonings as 'if you eat an apple you bite it to, so there
> is nothing we can do nothing against warfare'.

That's not /my/ reasoning.

The reason warfare will always be with us is because man is man.
> 
>>Violence has solved more of man's problems than any other method he's 
>>yet devised.
>>
> 
> If the tremendous violence we see around us is not itself one of man's
> problems to be solved, then what is?

Limited resources.
> 
>>After Rome destroyed Carthage, there were no more Punic Wars. It is as 
>>simple, and awful as that.
>>
> 
> Enc. Brittanica 2000:
> "The fall of Carthage and Corinth did not even mark a temporary end to
> warfare. War and military glory were an essential part of the Roman
> aristocratic ethos and, hence, of Roman political life. Apart from
> major wars still to come, small wars on the frontiers of Roman
> power--never precisely fixed--continued to provide an essential motive
> in Roman history: in Spain, Sardinia, Illyria, and Macedonia,
> barbarians could be defeated and triumphs won."

No, it did not mark an end to warfare, surely. But then, after Carthage 
was Delenda Ested, Rome had the better of it every where else. And, as I 
said: there were no more Punic Wars.

---
Art