The question of the day (and about every day now) is this:  Are we going to have "Peace" or "War then Peace"?

Raise your right hand if you want War then Peace.  Raise both your hands if you just want Peace.  It essentially is coming down to this.  And guess who gets to make the decision, which way we go.  Xi Jinping from China.  He's the one that gets to choose.

His decision should be somewhat easy to make, considering the fact that the free world has a pretty good "economic and military" defense against aggressive actions taken in either discipline.

War just simply does not make sense in modern times.  Remember the old song: "What good is war for--nothing!" (or something like that).   Think of recent modern-day wars and ask yourself who benefited.  Was it the "foreign aggressor" or the "foreign protector"?  

• WWII -- the foreign protectors benefited more than the foreign aggressors.
• Korean War -- stalemate, but in the end, the foreign and national protector benefited more than the foreign and national aggressor;
• Vietnam War -- the national protector benefited more than the foreign aggressor;
• The Six Day War -- the national protector benefited more than the foreign aggressors;
• Russia's Afghanistan War -- the national protector benefited more than the foreign aggressor;
• First Gulf War -- the foreign protectors benefited more than the national aggressor;
• Second Gulf War -- the national protector benefited more than the foreign aggressor;
• U.S. Afghanistan War -- the national protector benefited more than the foreign aggressor.

Now some of you might disagree with my interpretation as to who benefited the most from each of the above wars, but i will say this--i think i could make a pretty good argument that in each case that the "national protector" benefited more than "the foreign aggressor"--except for the cases where the "national entity" acted as the "aggressor" and the foreign entity (or entities) acted more as the "protector".

And so it goes.  Do you see a pattern forming?  In the modern world "war protectors" benefit more than "war aggressors".  Go figure why that might be the case, unless it might have something to do with "human nature"--wanting to protect one's homeland.

So, what good is war, anyway?  Why start a war if it always seems to turn out negative for the aggressive nation?  .That is one good f----- question.

It is time for globanomics and peace.  So, let's all raise both of our hands up in the air and scream at the top of our lungs for World Peace, a new World Federation to replace the United Nations, and goodwill among nations.  Real goodwill.  And real World Peace.

It's a new millennium, baby!  So, let's start acting like we learned something from the earlier millenniums and recent history.

Peace is important because we have major global problems that require immediate action (e.g., climate change, nuclear proliferation, population growth, etc.).  War detracts attention from these issues.  Peace draws our attention towards these issues.  All 8 billion of us live on one planet together.  Let's agree not to get ambitious and try to take what is not ours in the first place.