Rejoice! Rejoice!
We Have
 A Choice To Carry On!

Welcome To David


Francisco Coll, founder of the Americana Leadership College ( ), Inner Peace Movement ( and the Peace Community Church (, as stated in my website, in my link, “Respect,” speaks about “War and Peace” this way:

When one discusses “War and Peace,” he is really speaking about respect, about a lack of understanding and communication.

To discuss “War and Peace” intelligently, one must go back to prehistory. Our species was warlike, in that it guarded its staked out territory, its boundaries, zealously and killed trespassers.

Today some have added ideology and economics to be fought for. Of course, a desire for power or to exhibit the power of a group can be an impetus for war.

Peace is a relatively recent concept, although there have been periods in our history that some groups of people were more peaceful and peace-loving than others. Peace must initially be discovered within, where the God-like part, the good, kind, loving part of us manifests itself.

This is not to say that no good ever comes from war. For example, Napoleon published written constitutions for the various governments he established. Backward countries were educated. Conquerors became civilized. However, some of the preceding could have been accomplished diplomatically.

Some say that war is a failure of diplomacy. Some call it an extension of diplomacy. Basically it is allowing the negative part of us fuelled by impatience to offset the positive.

Of course, a fight for survival can be a response to a physical threat by another. The law calls the killing of another justified if it is in self-defense with appropriate instruments of defense used. This theory is extended to justification for defensive warfare, and sometimes defense is apparently necessary against an irrational enemy. However, some

believe pre-emptive warfare is justified because of earlier transgressions, whether real or imagined, by the other party. Fortunately the difficulty can usually be resolved through diplomacy.

Sometimes confused individuals, groups or nations will attack because of a preconceived idea of trespass upon their rights, whether such trespass is true or false and even if it is non-life threatening. He/they may find support for his/their so-called rights from others. The danger lies in the type of weaponry available to the aggressor(s).

With today’s science, world destruction is a possibility, and many cry out against the use of nuclear weapons. However, many world powers possess nuclear weapons or the capability of building them. Therefore, a nation may believe they have a right to possess nuclear weapons or the knowledge and means to build them.

How do we eliminate this threat of nuclear war? Perhaps it could be obtained by world agreement with all nations giving up the right and the means to construct them. In addition, an agreement outlawing all forms of colonialism where the powerful impose rights over the powerless is necessary.

I believe most people would trust a representative body over a dictator, even a benevolent dictator, to make the laws for their nation. I believe that a world state representative of all the countries in the world voting together would more adequately reflect a benevolent government, since fortunately most people and governments are more sane than insane. Therefore, if the absolute veto power of the nations in the Security Council can be withdrawn, a world state with the possibility of eliminating all nuclear weapons could be created. It need not be given power over any human endeavor except international security. With our science we should be able to detect any transgressions. I see no other resolution to this dilemma. Otherwise, we shall always live in fear.

For more information on a world state, please see my link “World State,” also in my website.

David C. Hakim

Rochester, Michigan

February 4, 2007