View Full Version : War.. What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'! bleu couldnt help herself there
Wars have been happening..well..forever! But, are they really necessary? is adding more violence really the key-componet to peace? Debate about wars, and your stance on the subject matter. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE has something to say about this, because wars have crashed down like giant tornados all over the world for thousands of years.
S o m e G u i d e l i n e s:
1. No bashing eachother or other cultures/countries.
2. No personal attacks, be kind to one another and treat them like you would want to be treated.. you know...elementary stuff.
3. Back up your statements, you can't just say "I don't like war" Tell us why, and with reasoning.
4. Only positive reps <3 xD make it a love fest in here.
Ab-so-lutely nothing!
HUH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZgHH72G8wQ&feature=related)!
good god, ya'll
Guildenstern
01-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Ab-so-lutely nothing!
HUH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZgHH72G8wQ&feature=related)!
good god, ya'll
Riekie
01-26-2008, 04:13 PM
Apparently they are necessary since the U.S.sees oil and want to make it theirs...>.> Also, they make lots and lots of money, well the gun factory that is. It's all about money.
I agree, its all about money and personal gain. The US doesnt even use their oil refineries, they dig up their oil near russia and are trying to get it in africe. By controlling Iraq, they control the oil there. George Bush is an oil man, he owns oil, he drinks oil.. The war in Iraq was unneccessary and wrong. Why? because most of the money should be going to finding Osama Bin Laden, and isnt he in Afganastan? or..from there. The United States is getting themselves more and more in debt with china as it is, and that is going to be hard to pay off. why fight a war when you dont have the money?
negativzero
01-26-2008, 04:19 PM
well, to be realistic, war fuels a lot of different economies.
without war there wouldn't be rockets today,
there wouldn't probably be a flu vaccine today,
there wouldn't be the internet today,
and a whole lot of other stuff
because it simply fuels a whole lot of other different industries which support the military.
but its not like we can't have those things i said above during peace time, just that development would have taken ages instead of just a few years with military funding.
oh and for the record, i'm still anti-war. but i'm just stating facts here.
juunana
01-26-2008, 04:33 PM
George Bush is an oil man, he owns oil, he drinks oil..
:rotflmao
The title is also classic xD
Good points Saint of sea hats xD But yes as you said they could happen in peace and I am sure there is plenty of options but people always take the quick one, eg war.
All war is good for is killing people and giving the greedy what they want.:yell
Im against war in general (especially the war between the us and iraq), mainly because i don't agree with the reasons behind them, but if i agreed, i may feel diferently
I do think it is a necesary component of life, however.
As much as the world may be more peaceful if everyone could always talk out their problems, that isn't how people work. People will hear what they want to hear, do what they want to do, and things like that.
War iteslf does settle arguments, more so than talking does, and until that changes war will always be around.
Agmaster
01-26-2008, 04:49 PM
Dammit Guild! Get a life so I could've done that first.
And wars bring change. Seriously, stagnant forces of government have no reason to change the status quo. Because humans are disgustingly short sighted and while many claim to see the big picture, a painfully miniscule amount actually do. Even revolutionaries act mainly because things have gotten beyond tolerable for them and those near them.
Yeh yeh, war fuels economies. Yawn. I can survive with a knife, rope, and eating not made for food fungus for entertainment.
Not to mention, war is such a lovely showing of human nature. Not as much now, as technology has really taken all of the soul out of it, but even still. You can really see how people are when they are in war. Some sink, some swim, some soar. In the dead of the night, following rules so you're kingdom looks good, scraping and scratching because there is nothing left to lose. It really is or do I mean was quite a beautiful ballet of blades, bullets, and business.
I'm not disappointed in everyone sans space's sister's (the color. the date of joining. you reek of being near. worry not, I don't find the smell offensive.) view of how war is. You've been ... shown only certain aspects by the media, and really now. Who can refuse the pang of guilt and shame one feels at seeing the desolate recieve further decimation.
Oh, get me not wrong. I am verily anti war. But that's only because it's lost it's beauty. Such is the price of progress.
Well, to me war is a tactic to scare people into 'peace' when another country feels threatened. I think that the inability to discuss our problems really makes us as humans look utterly pathetic when all we can do is 'fire zee missles'. :(
Take the Japan scenerio, there was alot of tension.. Then the US sent a nuclear device there and bam! They counted their dead, and reconsidered. There still was alot of tension there for years, Japan and the US didnt become best buddies until i was born ^-^
Riekie
01-26-2008, 05:03 PM
Hmm..people doing what they want? No. if the Iraqis would've done what they wanted, or palestina's, Shiites etc. etc. etc. then they would've killed everyone and everything before George could say: Oil! (okay, I am mixing different wars but that doesn't matter).
People that don't know or how to think on their own i e certain nations with a dictator/ or STRONG belief in a certain religion, will go and do what they think is right, in their master's/religion's eyes. And that is to blow everyone and them selves from this planet.
I am still amazed at hearing how many die there, or in that province over there. When is that country out of people? It amazes me every day that they still have bodies to count>.>
speedphantom
01-28-2008, 10:11 AM
We're taught that violence solves nothing but with all the ethnic tensions around and the land to be gained it can't be resolved by diplomacy.
I consider myself a realist not a pessimist, but I can't see a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel being brokered in the near future. I mean if you think they're going to sit around a table and discuss who's going to have what, that might be all well and good in the parliaments but the people on the street would think otherwise. The peace agreements are always ended with one fool firing his gun and all hell breaks loose again.
Its the fault of the UN for thinking they can just re-draw the map and create a new state right amongst an entire region which disagrees with it. Years of fighting can't be ended since both parties don't want the fighting to stop until they get what they want.
As for Iraq, its a little more clear cut, Bush clearly thought it was a good idea but even his brain can't think that any good has come out of it apart from boosting the stocks of the weapons manufacturers.
War is bad yes but it does pave the way for different things, better or worse.
I think its really stupid to settle a fight with fights.
Im a realist as well, actually.
Its plainly obvious to me that the people who are causing problems should be taken care of as well, detain them. One person who decides to shoot a gun shouldnt stop peace movements.
earthforge
02-03-2008, 08:03 AM
War is a grayscale matter. It is neither bad, nor good. But the man who handles it is generally the one who decides whether it is good or bad.
There is no such thing as a beautiful war. Nor should war be always said to be wonderful. In whatever war, people will die. Everyone should know that. Not just the leaders. War also is a great cost, not only in lives but in money. Which is why war should be avoided at all costs.
But when the need is most dire, war is neccesary. This is why strait anti-war people can unnerve me. There will always be the nasty and evil among us, so we can not just pray or have peace. It is a dream. When we conquer the evils inside ourselves, we will be at peace. And as unfortunate as it is, we are not there yet.
World War II was a war that was neccessary. America needed to intervene, because once the defenses of England broke, Germany would have enough power to take on the USSR. And we succeeded in defeating them. But it was bloody. Very bloody. My grandfather was present at the Battle of the Bulge, which was the ugliest battle in WWII. He ran in and dragged the corpses off the battlefield. On his death bed, my grandfather was remembering, reliving that time. He spoke of the worst thing in that battle: the mud. It was miserable.
Those memories will haunt a person for a lifetime, they NEVER go away.
When you sign up for combat in war, you are signing up to defend your country. But, you also signed up to kill many people, and see your friends die right in front of you in the most brutal ways. Seeing this day in and day out isnt nice. I actually had the pleasure of talking to a solider who fought in Iraq when i went to the US last year, and he told me that the worst part was seeing his friends fall down, and dying in his arms..their blood all over his face. You sit there, safe in your homes, while out there right now people are DYING. You may think it is for a good cause, and that its for "Freedom" but whats so free about taking anothers life? Theres little babies who will NEVER see their father, and their sad widows being constantly haunted by their memory. Parents, sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, spouses.. They lose people they love, and for what? Oil? Resources? Land? Are these things actually worth thousands of soldiers lives, and millions of tears? You can buy all of the land or oil, but you cannot buy back the life of a soldier.
Of course, some soldiers live through the experience. Yet, the experience NEVER ends for them. Imagine having to relive the faces of the men you killed, and seeing them die until you die. Imagine hearing the cries of your comrads. Many soliders come back and devlop physcological problems later in life.
I'd like to share an article on it i found on BBC, its really interesting:
Tens of thousands of US soldiers - and untold numbers of Iraqi veterans and civilians - are suffering psychological trauma from the war in Iraq. The numbers of UK troops showing signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression are much lower. But experts warn that they may only be the first of many.
Martin Hazard's Iraq experience might not sound so bad on the face of it.
A communications officer, he worked gruelling 30- to 36-hour shifts, and people often depended on him for their lives.
Even those who survive uninjured may feel distressed
Iraq war trauma: Your views
He regularly had to stay at his post, even when his camp was being shelled, because his work was so critical.
But he saw little in the way of face-to-face combat, and came home to the UK in August 2003, before the insurgency gathered steam.
Even so, he often has to drink himself to sleep, two years later.
"I don't get more than three hours' sleep a night - and then I hit the bottle," he says.
Little things prey on his mind, he says. He suffers from nightmares, and has become confrontational, his wife Sara adds.
Psychological stress
His symptoms are the classic ones of PTSD - a psychological condition that can affect people who have been through difficult experiences.
Photo journal: Widow's story
Campaigners and mental-health experts who work with soldiers say cases like Martin Hazard's are going to become more common among British troops who served in Iraq.
Shaun Rusling of the National Gulf Veterans and Families' Association says his organisation has already been contacted by more than 50 Iraq veterans showing signs of psychological trauma.
"They are most certainly suffering from true PTSD - serious mood swings, nightmares, sweats and fevers, attention deficit," he says.
And Combat Stress, a charity for veterans with mental health problems, is treating about 25 veterans of the current conflict with PTSD.
Not all were traumatised by combat itself - such as a mechanic in the reservist Territorial Army, who was called up to fix machinery.
"He goes out from his normal life and is asked to repair a refrigeration unit, which is of course the home of many dead bodies," says Morag Heggie, the head of clinical services at Combat Stress's Audley Court counselling centre.
"That is not what he was expecting, and people are shovelling in more bodies and saying: 'Hurry up.'"
Sooner than expected
The executive director of Combat Stress, Toby Elliott, takes it as a warning that the charity is already treating so many veterans of an ongoing war.
If you say you are feeling wobbly in the head, the first thing is that they will take your rifle away from you
Toby Elliott,
Combat Stress
"It takes an average of 14 to 15 years for a regular soldier to seek help," he says, adding that many more veterans are likely to find themselves experiencing Iraq-related PTSD in the coming decades.
But, he adds, there are powerful reasons for soldiers not to admit they are having mental health problems - doing so could jeopardise their careers.
"You know bloody well that if you say you are feeling wobbly in the head, the first thing is that they will take your rifle away from you," he says.
"Even if you are retained, you probably won't get promoted."
Doubt
And unlike in the United States, where a generation of Vietnam veterans introduced the notion of PTSD to the general populace, there is still suspicion of the concept in the UK, not least among soldiers.
Psychological stress is a symptom of political correctness in the 21st Century where everyone has to be stressed or depressed
George Bremer,
Former artilleryman
George Bremer, 55, served as an artilleryman in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles in the early 1970s - and he shares the doubts many serving and former soldiers express about psychological trauma.
"I'm surprised so many people are coming back saying they're stressed," he says.
He went through many of the experiences which psychiatrists say can trigger PTSD - being fired on, returning fire, handling dead bodies - and says he was unnaturally alert for a few months after he came home.
But then, he says, he got over it.
"A lot of people rely on crutches, which I don't think is beneficial. Psychological stress is a symptom of political correctness in the 21st Century where everyone has to be stressed or depressed."
Ongoing research
Little information about the mental health of UK troops in Iraq is available yet - but a major study should be published late this year or early next year, says Dr Amy Iversen of the King's Centre for Military Health Research.
About 75,000 UK troops have served in the Iraq theatre since the invasion in March 2003 - many of whom have done multiple tours, the Ministry of Defence says.
Neither pre- nor post-deployment mental health screening is standard in the UK armed forces.
The Ministry of Defence said in a statement it was "committed to providing the best available health care to the few servicemen and women suffering from mental health problems.
"All personnel have access to trained mental health staff whilst deployed", the statement said, adding that soldiers being demobilised receive a medical examination which includes questions about mental health.
About 10% of UK troops airlifted out of the war zone between January and October 2003 suffered primarily from psychological problems, according to a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
If you're not doing what you're trained to do, or you're a reservist, or Territorial Army (TA), it is more difficult
Jamie Hacker-Hughes, King's Centre for Military Health Research
Dr Anne Braidwood, a medical adviser to the UK Veterans' Agency, says British troops may show lower levels of psychological trauma than their US counterparts because their situations are different.
US soldiers "consistently have been subjected to very high levels of combat and insurgency. In addition they are less used to peacekeeping than we are."
Another small scale-study suggests a successful deployment can actually be good for a soldier's mental health.
But its author, Jamie Hacker-Hughes of the King's Centre, says the troops he studied were professional soldiers on successful, short-term missions.
"If you're not doing what you're trained to do, or you're a reservist, or Territorial Army (TA), it is more difficult," he says.
Toby Elliott of Combat Stress says TA soldiers are seeking help in disproportionately high numbers - although only 10% of the troops deployed to Iraq have been from the TA, 50% of those in treatment at Combat Stress are.
That could be partly because TA veterans do not have access to Ministry of Defence medical services, he says.
They may also have more difficult readjustment problems than regular army soldiers, who tend to remain in a military environment - often among the same group of people they served with - after Iraq.
TA troops return to their civilian lives.
Changed man
Peter Mahoney was one such TA soldier. He served with the Royal Logistic Corps, and found the transition back to civilian life unbearably difficult.
Before going to Iraq in 2003, he was "a party animal, a happy-go-lucky bloke," his wife Donna says.
When he returned, he "became like a recluse", she says. He was argumentative and racist, and would disappear for hours alone on his motorcycle.
A year after his return, he killed himself.
"His enthusiasm for life had dwindled," Donna says. "He wasn't nice at the end. He wasn't the same man."
So basically, many soliders experience this.. and it is a huge problem just not for the combatants, but for everyone serving. And what can we do about it? Sure we can putthem in therapy, but will it really work? No. Here is also a paragraph i found about US Solider suicides in Iraq:
"At least 30 U.S. soldiers killed themselves in Iraq in 2007 — the highest number since the war began — despite the Army's myriad efforts to improve its suicide prevention and mental health programs.
An analysis of Pentagon data shows that 30 soldiers died of self-inflicted injuries, with another six cases pending a final determination of cause. The 2007 war-zone tally exceeds the 27 confirmed suicides in Iraq in 2006, which was a record high since the war began."
Here is the full article if you want to read it:
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hc-soldiersuicides0201.artfeb01,0,7473743.story
I honestly don't think putting these soliders through such pain is worth it for the little cause.
taramjwi
02-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Yes. Please. Send us home! I've been over here in warland for about 6 months and while I'm no where near a point where I would kill myself it does get to you a bit sometimes. And even though I can't say that I completely agree with us being over here for this particular war/campaign I don't think leaving things as they are now over here would do us any good. It would simply return to a state of internal strife and chaos again if we were to leave too soon. So I guess what I'm saying is even though I don't like war in general, I feel that continuing a seemingly unnecessary war is necessary. Of course no war at all is always preferrable to war, and a hell of a lot safer for me :rolleyes:. Due to this deployment I can now tell the difference between a rocket and a mortar attack ;)
Ametatsu
02-12-2008, 12:25 AM
So I guess what I'm saying is even though I don't like war in general, I feel that continuing a seemingly unnecessary war is necessary.
Yes, I agree...Once you've gone in there and fucked stuff up, you can't just leave it, you have to finish what you've started and actually make an improvement. The point (ostensibly) of something like the Iraq war was to pull down the old regime and build something more acceptable instead. Whether it's right or not to go in in the first place, once you've done the pulling down you have to do the rebuilding. If you just do the destruction part and leave it in chaos it really is just a waste. Once you've got this far, the only way you can make up for the lives and money and everything else that's already been lost is to actually finish what you started.
What needs to happen more is for politicians to actually listen to the people telling them not to go to war BEFORE war is actually declared :mad:
Llama
02-12-2008, 01:40 AM
I am against war in general but sometimes we must take up arms. Let's say two countries are fighting for oil. Well I believe it's a pretty pointless war and should have never have happened. But human nature is human nature. Now lets say one country wants to destroy another countries land, enslave the people, kill them, etc. Well then they must fight. I might be against war but if someone threatens my freedom, my family and friends, my land, or my life, well I'm going to fight to the bitter end.
And that's my two cents.
Ulquiorra
02-12-2008, 04:56 AM
absolutely nothin, sing it again LISTEN TO ME LISTEN TO ME Y'AAAAAALLL!!!
aah Rush Hour. classic.
haha anyways...
within human history war has always existed. Whether it be conflict over land, conflict over principle or conflict over government, humans are bound to having wars with each other. As long as people with power exist, there will always be war. And that system of power works much better than the alternative, which is total anarchy. War is essential to the development of the human race, whether we want to admit it or not.
of course, there are always going to be petty pointless wars. Like the one in Iraq. But meh, conflicts will always exist within human society. That's just the way we are.
sometimes you need to protect something you hold dear to you, then war is a better option then finding the nearest rock, roll under it and die.
i preffer taking part in a truly defensive war. (have the enemy attacked your soil?)
Well, if you are attacked, then you should fight back. armies were set in place for defence reasons.
But other than that, war should be, for the best interest of the country, avoided at all costs.
the problem is that every war have the justification of self defense (at least the great majority of them) for example vietnam, in order to stop the communist tide America went to war.
would vietnamise soldiers could attack america border? i doubt it. defending one self is more complicated then just defending and attacking.
Humanity and war fell in love and never splitted up..... How sad.
all lifeforms fight among themselfs for power. its not something we invented, its something that is with us for the last 2 billion years, life fell in love with war.
Indeed.
While before that, humans fell in love with power. And to obtain power, war is an option.
Never thought I'd relate love to war.
actually all life aspire for power. power is also life,without this aspiration to become stronger and more powerfull there wouldnt be life. life itself is in love with war and power because its the same, power\life.
but we humans can actually divorce from this cycle because we are so good and so amazing and powerfull that we made atom bombs and we actually too powerfull for our own good.
in other words...lets keep war non-nuclear, umkay? nukes are bad...when they dont blow up astroids that is.
So if humans didn't desire power, there wouldn't be life..? There are better ways to grow as a person and to make life meaningful.
I think, if the nuke bomb was never invented, WW3 is much more likely to happen. For example, if USA would nuke China, they realize China would strike back with a nuke. It more or less keeps the nations balanced and holding back and maybe even sooner to negotiate with eachother rather than attack.
Not that i'm saying the atom bomb is something good, what if it falls in the hand of some terrorists....?! Scary thought.
no, if LIFE, every life didnt wanted power there wouldnt be life, if life didnt wanted power we would never move from single cells and algess into our form, we would never live the sea. this desire to be better and stronger is what drive humans and all other life forms to advance.
our problems is that we moved beyond weapons that destroy the enemy armies and cities into weapons that kill everything, we have big toys in a small sandbox. we advanced to nuclear war before we had moved to other planets where nuking the other side out of existance wouldnt automaticly kill your children from radiation.
Yeah, ur right. Ironic tho, that life's desire for power eventually will kill itself.
not true! i find much logci in war, its a way to express what you and ultimatly your country are standing for (mostly defensive wars...i am not talking about oil wars)
a nuclear war is possiable and might be a very good option in some cases but not when both sides have enough nukes to decimate the planet 40 times and we are only on one planet.
for example hiroshima and nagasaki, the japanese would never surrender to a ground assualt, the destruction of those two cities saved countless thousends of americans and maybe even japanese but ill tell you a secreat as a ex soldier.
no country give a damn about the other side soldiers, the only important think in the end is to save your people, if you had two buttons, one kill 1000 of your enemy soldiers and another kills 100 of your own you will make the same choice over and over again. your people come first because they fight for you and die for you. that dosnt mean that just killing the other side is okay but that your side is more important, if it wasnt then you would be on the other side wont you?
mebidtt13
05-22-2008, 10:46 AM
War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!!! xD
Well, to the point... There are nothing good with wars. What's the point in conquering, getting money and land? We all live on this earth, why do we have to split up different teams and fight? Like this religion against this religion or this land against this land? So why can't people just try to get along?
Well, I know it's difficult, but if people could think "We may be different, but we are human, the same kind", I think it would be so much better^^
naive. as long as people would want to have their own country there would be wars, history shows that even when a people dont have weapons they are killed in wars and being slaughterd, once some1 gives up on their army some1 else rise up and take advantage of their weakness.
kiera2
05-23-2008, 12:27 AM
Well, to the point... There are nothing good with wars.
That's simply not true. War is almost certainly the single biggest driver of technological development.
What's the point in conquering, getting money and land? We all live on this earth, why do we have to split up different teams and fight?
That's easy to say when you don't have a bunch of people who believe that your homeland belongs to them, just as much as you believe it belongs to you. Like Shdo said, it's pretty naive to think that all wars can be solved so easily.
war is indeed one of the greatest technolegy advancer, that and the fear of war. most technolegies are originated from warfare, even the internet was first used for militery and evolved from there. we are a violant species, and even this weird criticizem of less warlike countries upon more warlike countries is derived from the same thing that drives war, the will to grow and become better(aka forcing your culture on another one).
the thing about war is that it define who we are and what we stand for, do we care about land? over captives? over ethics? why do we go to war? the reason is to define ourselves. that is why many countries that are similer to one another have good relationships while countries with drasticly diffrent prespective are usually hostile.
mebidtt13
05-23-2008, 10:59 AM
That's simply not true. War is almost certainly the single biggest driver of technological development.
True, but... In exchange, so many lives have been lost, so what's the point? A life is worth more than anything, and war kills, so I really don't understand what it's good for...
Like Shdo said, it's pretty naive to think that all wars can be solved so easily.
War can't be solved so easily, I know that, but what I meant was: Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just got along?
It's not like I don't know how messed up everything is right now, but killing is wrong and I really don't like it, that's what I'm trying to say...
speedphantom
05-23-2008, 11:18 AM
Kiera doesn't like war I'm sure but it's just the question which the topic poses:p. What is it good for. It's not saying whether it's bad or not, it's just discussing what positives come out of war. It has nothing to do with the negatives.
So in saying technology is advanced is one good thing out of war and yes people don't like war but that's not what this topic is about.
another good thing is the 'define yourself' thing. when the nazies started to take over the world people said 'thats it' indeviduals and whole countries rallied and showed that they will not agree for this opression, and in a way its a monument for the world stand at the time. when a country goes to war for something they strengthen their self definition, for example: when china invaded tibet, it was for the sake of the one china idea, that strengthen their national identity. when israel went to war it was under the banner of never again. when nato went to war in serbia it was a stand against miloshevitz regime. in the end the countries who participate in the war came with a stronger bond to their heritage and stand for what they belive in.
kiera2
05-24-2008, 01:24 AM
A life is worth more than anything, and war kills, so I really don't understand what it's good for...
It's good for advancing technology, like I said. Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is a different question entirely, but there's no arguing that there are various benefits to wars.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone just got along?
Sure. And it would be nice if we cured cancer tomorrow. And it would be nice if I won the lottery. But wishful thinking doesn't do anyone any good - and in this case I think it's even counterproductive. Sitting back and thinking "I wish everyone would just be nice to each other" distracts from the question of why conflicts happen and what realistic (rather than idealistic) things can be done about them.
even trying to make everyone friendly to one another might be counter productive, sometimes its better to reach a cold peace for a generation or two until the hate subside instead of futily trying to force two groups to love one another.
Well another possible pro to war is it shows what something is worth to you
whether it is or not is a different question, but in general most people think of death as the ultimate consequence or result of something
So you find out just how much something is worth to you when you're willing to risk your life for it
Shdo- indeed, some groups (and thus every group) are better off by not being focred to be friendly with each other
not only what is important to you as a indevidual but what is important to you as a people. for example if there is a genocide in country A and country B go to war in order to stop it that define them, that show what is important to them.
or if country A found new resources around your border and you declare war to seize them then that also defince who you are, be it good or bad.
Shdo- yeah, and the US is a good example right now
back in 2003 most of the US citizens were ready to go to war, it was what we as a people wanted (im not going to turn this into a political debate about whether the people were lied to/coerced or not) but as the years have changed the benefits have begun to exceed to the costs in many peoples eyes
this is a clear example that "the rewards" are less than what people are willing to give up
yes, as a people the americans wanted to go to war, those who actually held power wanted the war for their shady reasons but the people themselves wanted to take out sadam, to me this define the american people, this refusal to accept such people in this world.
Inevitable.Exit
05-26-2008, 09:08 PM
yes, as a people the americans wanted to go to war, those who actually held power wanted the war for their shady reasons but the people themselves wanted to take out sadam, to me this define the american people, this refusal to accept such people in this world.I don't recall there being a huge uproar for people wanting to invade Iraq (as opposed to Afghanistan, which following 9/11 was HUGE). It was more along the lines of Bush doing what he wanted and his sheep in congress going along with it. Fake "intelligence" reports anyone? But that is another topic.
While I don't think War should ever be the first step (in most cases. Some cases like say Israel, I don't think should risk trying to negotiate), I do think it is necessary and sometimes leads technological, medical etc advancement. I don't quite agree that people go to war to define themselves, more like protect what they feel is right/theirs.
So war is both good and bad, it's just that you have to take one to get the other.
by fighting for what you belive in (be it to protect ethics, lives, or for pure bloodshed) you define who you are.
Why did the two male Tyrannosaurus Rexs fight each other? For dominance. World peace will never happen as long as Sin is in this world. Just by any chance if it does, then of course the world would be corrupt by underground means. By that I mean the World Gov. (Assuming it's called that) would be blind or allow that to happen just to look good. Unfortunately, I doubt world peace will ever happen.
McDoogle
05-28-2008, 08:59 PM
like avi said, we will never achieve peace without sin. But more importantly, he said because of dominance. All peoples actions boil down to is survival, this includes reproduction and war etc. If one person sees another as a threat, they will naturally feel anger, its how the mind works, its the same thing with war, just on a bigger scale, one country feels a thread from another and they do something about it, simple as.
Ok, this spoiler related to the source of war and how its related to religions.
Unfortunatly, this is the one thing in the world which contridicts the belief of a god to so much of a extent, People can say there is war because god gave us free will, but it isnt entirely down to freewill tht war starts, its down to instictive thoughts programmed into our genes through centuries, which goes right back to our creation. Maybe it was us being able to adapt or EVOLVE tht gave us those insticts but its clear without them, there would be no war and there would be peace because no one would see threats and no one would feel the bitterness called hate. Why would a god of such perfection who says it is a sin give us the instict? Maybe to give us the will to protect our selves, or others, because we would be killed by other species if it wasnt for that will to protect through the instict of hate, but god also created those creatures aswell, so why would they be hate?The devil? well some say the devil is a angle decended from heaven who went against god, but an angle is gods creation aswell, surely if it was something as powerful and dangerous as the devil he would put a stop to it.
Really, to sum up, war is the act of a genetic instict which makes us human, free will plays the part of acting upon these insticts and not acting upon them, but this will power wouldnt be neede if the instict wasnt there. Therefore, the very creation of war is our existance, war has become inevitable, we will destroy our selves to survive because war is a simple contridiction, we fight to survive but all the while, killing our own kind. The fact that we declare ourselves individual nations because of disagreements on life, we are separating our selves from each other and thus we create our own enemies.
Essentually, war solves nothing, instead it does the oposite and brings problems to solve. If we were declare the world as one nation instead of many, we would begin to see each other as allies, we would begin to trust eachother and there would become no need to the weapons of war.
Everyone goes on about equality, when inequality is seen all around us, war is just a sideffect from in-equality, we separate each other because we are different, we treat each other differently because of language, belief and many other things, aka racism.
Rather than looking at the past and wondering what if this happend, its become clear to most that it is acting upon the past that matters, but no one does, because essenually, they dont know how, they think "oh, if i do this next time..." when rather its "I shouldnt do this next time"
and unforunatly, i lost what i was going on about because i had to go down stairs XD ill report when its came back. ;
Essentually, war solves nothing, instead it does the oposite and brings problems to solve. If we were declare the world as one nation instead of many, we would begin to see each other as allies, we would begin to trust eachother and there would become no need to the weapons of war.
Everyone goes on about equality, when inequality is seen all around us, war is just a sideffect from in-equality, we separate each other because we are different, we treat each other differently because of language, belief and many other things, aka racism.
Rather than looking at the past and wondering what if this happend, its become clear to most that it is acting upon the past that matters, but no one does, because essenually, they dont know how, they think "oh, if i do this next time..." when rather its "I shouldnt do this next time"
Im sorry, but i greatly disagree with this. Even if the world were 1 nation, that wouldn't change anything, except people might not fight in the name of their country.
Any small disagreement will still lead to war, although this will just be a civil war. Having allies doesn't prevent war, preventing war can create allies.
And even if there was no direct need for weapons of war, that wouldn't stop man from creating them
And seperating a group based on differences isn't (or shouldn't be) considered racism, judging people based soley on those things is
I am not necesarily pro-war, but wars are just as necesary as peace because without one there is no other
actually war have solved many things, keep in mind there were many kingdoms and people in the past that stood in the way of the countries that are here today. well you dont hear about those guys anymore, they are not in our ways anymore. as for the war and god thing, the reason we can have both peace and war is because basicly of yin&yang or yetzer arah&yetzer atov basicly we do need the dark and light sides of us but war and pacifictic decedance are both a resolt of getting out of balance.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.