I think the US, EU, Russia, China, and Turkey as powers are in a constant tension to fight terrorist actions. Maybe in some cases the actions of the governments are questionable, but the vast amount of issues creates an incredible amount of internal issues, and also stress the relationships between nations.

That more and more money is spent on the military, security, the UN and counter-intelligence is needless to say, that in the modern world, any kind of power is locked into a constant proxy war of intelligence. Meanwhile, smaller nations who are weak, or incapable of maintaining a stable system or relationship with a power are doomed to an endless spiral of violence and societal destruction by the paramount amount of issues and forces pushing against the people and government themselves.

I don't remember who specifically, but it is argued that the modern world is in fact no less violent and anarchic than the non-modern era, but in fact all the violence has been subverted, or changed meanwhile many people simply work onto establishing a distinction between the world as it was before and now. (Kinda the hypocrisy from the powers on the planet that enjoy technology that is often made with conflict resources)

World peace is impossible. Therefore, we'll be always locked in some sort of conflict.

I doubt that's the case, unless the overall public disagrees with a specific war such as what happened with the Vietnam war. How you would also define the "war on terrorism" that the west is currently employing? The main status of conflicts, at least from the West spawns from that, and the conflict of interests with other powers in certain parts of the world.

The Western world.

You, nor your friends, have much of a choice if the government is effectively engaged in warfare.