Let's say the world took a chance on peace: Who would be in?

[infinite59]

Let's say Nelson Mandela, the Pope, and other world leaders got together and said, "On Jan. 1rst 2005 we are all going to declare world peace.  Whoever is in on this world peace, we want you to destroy all of your weapons of mass destruction, end all of your wars, all of your fighting, put the guns down, and let's give peace a try!"

Who do you think would be in?  Who would be willing to give away their military might to give peace a chance?  Who would be willing to end all their military operations to give peace a chance?  Who has the most to gain?  Who has the most to lose?  Would those who had the most to gain be more willing to give peace a chance, then those who had the most to lose? 

My guess would be that the most powerful nations militarily, would be the last one's to ever give peace a try and dismantle their military operations.

[pappy]

very few people would be in it.  from the most powerful nation to the lowest terroist leader.

[infinite59]

very few people would be in it.  from the most powerful nation to the lowest terroist leader.

The poor people that have a great deal to gain, would surely be in on it.

[Sikotic™]

It would be beautiful. Just for a few days no fighting, but too bad the hearts of men are wicked.

[Jome]

My guess would be that the most powerful nations militarily, would be the last one's to ever give peace a try and dismantle their military operations.

Sad, but true.

[7even]

Definitely Germany

[GoodLuvn169]

Not too many people.  Although everybody would want to they would be afraid of the people that wouldn't abide to the peace.  And for that sole fact they would keep their guns and weapons of mass destruction.  Everybody would be afraid of the other person.  I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

[Montana00]

middle east is out.

[Trauma-san]

Nobody trusts anyone in the world, and conspiracy theories run the day.  So nobody would do it.  @ the same time, saying men's hearts are wicked is rediculous, men do not naturally have wicked hearts.  You're born pure it's the world and your situations and encounters that turn your heart wicked, it's natural state is to be pure and loving. 

[Maradona]

middle east is out.

Yup, those damn Iraqis and their WMDs; they attacked us and killed millions of our people.

[Doggystylin]

middle east is out.

Your quick to say middle east is out, but not the U.S.? Who has a war going on in 2 countries and the strongest military force in the world? Iraq and Afganistan don't even have a military and the U.S. is still over there fighting them. What middle east country that has a military is engaged in war right now...hmm.... I think it just might be.....

the only true democracy in the middle east

If you don't know who that is then go ask your buddy Woodrow

[Don Rizzle]

My guess would be that the most powerful nations militarily, would be the last one's to ever give peace a try and dismantle their military operations.

Sad, but true.

uhuh, but on the other hand the west would have the most to lose

[Don Rizzle]

Definitely Germany

They wouldn't need to britain has 25,000 troops there and and america has a fair wack too, many german towns depend on our militry presence, on the positive for us we have plenty of places to practise with our tanks etc. as in britain all we have is the salisbury plain which isn't big enough

[Billy Bollocks]

And if theres an alien invasion?

Someone needs to catch up on missed episodes of The Simpsons.

[7even]

Definitely Germany

They wouldn't need to britain has 25,000 troops there and and america has a fair wack too, many german towns depend on our militry presence, on the positive for us we have plenty of places to practise with our tanks etc. as in britain all we have is the salisbury plain which isn't big enough

what the hell do we benefit from stupid jets polluting our air and making noise? the USA is big enough to have their tanks on their fuckin own ground. it's amazing USA/England have the nerve to station their troops here.