Wars - are you against, or with?

[Cookies]

Do you support wars, or usually against them?

I believe Wars are not necessary (Except if they have a bomb pointing right at us). If world leaders sit down for a few minutes together, discuss, and plan socially, we can minimize war count. I am usually always against wars.


Let's hear your opinions.

[Mitch]

Wars are definitely unnecessary, most problems can be solved democratically.

[Syngenetic]

Agreed ^^. They only cause damages and destruction. Lives are lost for no reason. Looting from other peoples. Country loses its value. Not to mention, we have some crazy weapons now.

[Mitch]

Though I am TOTALLY against wars, they have had some positive effects on the economy.
In the US, World War II greatly improved the US economy and brought it out of the great depression.

[ShadyPolitics]

Everyone except the powerful should be against war. Resorting to war is never smart, but sometimes it necessary. I feel that war is only necessary when your country is under direct attack and I truly believe that if everyone applied to that principle, their would be less wars. Preemptive war should be against international laws and its nothing more then a creation of Nazi Germany.

[Cattraknoff]

Everyone except the powerful should be against war. Resorting to war is never smart, but sometimes it necessary. I feel that war is only necessary when your country is under direct attack and I truly believe that if everyone applied to that principle, their would be less wars. Preemptive war should be against international laws and its nothing more then a creation of Nazi Germany.

International laws only hold weight if the country breaking them doesn't have big enough guns to scare everyone else off.

[Gwendl]

The reason the war helped the economy back in WWII was because were weren't prepared for the war. So we had to build a lot of the weapons, ships, tanks and armor that was required. Every company practically dropped everything and began creating things for the war. This gave everyone that was left home a job and thus created an economic boom. However, that is a horrible way to do it.

A war in a small country like Iraq generally has the opposite effect because it does not create that groundswell of support from corporate America that WWII did. In the end, it will wind up draining the economy and put us into a recession which is where we are headed.

As to war itself, violence only precludes violence. But I do think in rare cases, it is a necessary evil. But the declaration of war should always follow diplomacy and only if there is adequate cause to make that move. It should also be that it should have a specific win scenario, and not an abstract goal. Like in Iraq, what is the end that will be victory? Does anyone even know?

[Cattraknoff]

The reason the war helped the economy back in WWII was because were weren't prepared for the war. So we had to build a lot of the weapons, ships, tanks and armor that was required. Every company practically dropped everything and began creating things for the war. This gave everyone that was left home a job and thus created an economic boom. However, that is a horrible way to do it.

A war in a small country like Iraq generally has the opposite effect because it does not create that groundswell of support from corporate America that WWII did. In the end, it will wind up draining the economy and put us into a recession which is where we are headed.

As to war itself, violence only precludes violence. But I do think in rare cases, it is a necessary evil. But the declaration of war should always follow diplomacy and only if there is adequate cause to make that move. It should also be that it should have a specific win scenario, and not an abstract goal. Like in Iraq, what is the end that will be victory? Does anyone even know?

Martial law in the United States or the complete annihilation of what's left of the Constitution would probably be considered a victory.

[Ed Jones]

In order for there not to be wars humanity would have to shed itself of its most basic qualities. Love, desire, loyalty and faith. If we did that then we are shedding what it means to be human.

The point i'm trying to make is that war is natural, it is profitable and most of all has defined every civilization for the past 200,000 years and no matter how many men, women and children who have been fed information by the mass media and by listening to Eminem tracks will change that.

We are told that "war kills people". Well so do dishwashers but i can't see the out and out banning of them any time soon, can you?

[Locke]

In order for there not to be wars humanity would have to shed itself of its most basic qualities. Love, desire, loyalty and faith. If we did that then we are shedding what it means to be human.

The point i'm trying to make is that war is natural, it is profitable and most of all has defined every civilization for the past 200,000 years and no matter how many men, women and children who have been fed information by the mass media and by listening to Eminem tracks will change that.



Appeal to tradition fallacy. Simply because war has been the defining point of our race does not mean it is the right way or a non-changeable occurence. Nevertheless, I do concede that stripping us of the emotional causes of war would strip us of our inherent humanity. An interesting book on that subject is "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood.
We are told that "war kills people". Well so do dishwashers but i can't see the out and out banning of them any time soon, can you?
That isn't analogous in the least. I know that "dishwashers", in your point, is simply an interchangeable object, yet it cannot be exchanged for "human". Dishwashers kill accidentally, and in far lesser number that war. The total deaths accounted for by dishwashers: ~100. The ignobility of war is the fact that humans would deliberately kill one another in a game for strategical or economic gain. Contradictory to your argument, most humans as we are now do not possess a killer instinct. It is possible to have a world without war.


p.s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2943930.stm

[ShadyPolitics]

In my opinion, war will exist as long as humans exist. If its not one nation against another, there will eventually still be civil war. Its really amusing how people think that a 1 world government would solve the problem of war. When a 1 world government is put into place, civil war over power will begin to erupt and we will eventually wipe out each other. Sometimes I wonder if there were no governments, would there be no war. But, I guess it has been embedded into us that we can not survive without a government, and the thought of not being governed scares me and a lot of other people.

[Cattraknoff]

In my opinion, war will exist as long as humans exist. If its not one nation against another, there will eventually still be civil war. Its really amusing how people think that a 1 world government would solve the problem of war. When a 1 world government is put into place, civil war over power will begin to erupt and we will eventually wipe out each other. Sometimes I wonder if there were no governments, would there be no war. But, I guess it has been embedded into us that we can not survive without a government, and the thought of not being governed scares me and a lot of other people.

War can be eliminated if humanity's free will can be stripped from us, or at least suppressed. They're already working towards this goal. Peace is the way, whatever the cost. Unified humanity must happen as well... right?

Unification through slavery, tyranny, and eventually genocide.

Would you prefer the chance of war, or slavery to prevent it?

Wars can be prevented if the country being attacked has the means to defend itself. No one ever attacks a nuclear power that has ICBMs.

[Ed Jones]

Appeal to tradition fallacy. Simply because war has been the defining point of our race does not mean it is the right way or a non-changeable occurence. Nevertheless, I do concede that stripping us of the emotional causes of war would strip us of our inherent humanity. An interesting book on that subject is "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood.
The most important events in history were based from war and conflict. The most defining act of man has been society. With societies there will always be disagreements. You are deluded to argue otherwise.

That isn't analogous in the least. I know that "dishwashers", in your point, is simply an interchangeable object, yet it cannot be exchanged for "human". Dishwashers kill accidentally, and in far lesser number that war. The total deaths accounted for by dishwashers: ~100. The ignobility of war is the fact that humans would deliberately kill one another in a game for strategical or economic gain. Contradictory to your argument, most humans as we are now do not possess a killer instinct. It is possible to have a world without war.
I disagree. We clearly have different views into what it means to be "human". Hhumans are selfish - if i walk down a street in a bad part of town, someone will try their luck. I believe that if i leave my door unlocked, someone will steal my brand new HiFi.

Be realistic. There's a good chance dishwashers will outlast humanity.

[Mitch]

As Ed Jones stated.
Humans are animals, just smart animals (as far as we know, I think ants are smarter), we have instincts and there are common traits between all humans, including violence. The only way to completely avoid war is to delete all violent or harmful thoughts in our minds.
That's easy right?

[Locke]

All I can hope for is an evolution of the mind.
Apparently, the sociological concensus is that our minds our conditioned to the circumstances of life 50,000 years ago. We were never meant to progress with such rapidity; a slowly evolving race would have had a chance for long term survival.
We're pretty much destined to commit auto-genocide.

[Cattraknoff]

All I can hope for is an evolution of the mind.
Apparently, the sociological concensus is that our minds our conditioned to the circumstances of life 50,000 years ago. We were never meant to progress with such rapidity; a slowly evolving race would have had a chance for long term survival.
We're pretty much destined to commit auto-genocide.

The mind does not evolve when people do not wish it to.

So long as people wish to remain stupid, they will.

[brookes]

I am definetly against wars. They always lead more animosity. There are other methods to achieve anything, but politicians adapt the war, just like what bush did.

[Coll]

I believe wars are justified in some cases. To take paraphrase from the American Declaration of "Independence", "when a government becomes destructive of the peoples' rights, they have a right to change it" revolutions are a very important part of government. If there were never any wars we'd all be like Guy Montag, and you'd still be drinking good tea.

As for international wars as opposed to intranational, a properly planned and executed war can be very beneficial to people and states.

[Locke]

I believe wars are justified in some cases. To take paraphrase from the American Declaration of "Independence", "when a government becomes destructive of the peoples' rights, they have a right to change it" revolutions are a very important part of government. If there were never any wars we'd all be like Guy Montag, and you'd still be drinking good tea.

As for international wars as opposed to intranational, a properly planned and executed war can be very beneficial to people and states.


Beneficial to people from all walks of death, eh? I'm not opposed to the concept that a war (of the international sort) can benefit some people, but by the very definition of war not all parties can participate for fun and profit: there will be negative repercussions, acute (i.e. DEATH) or chronic. That is put forth unless you are speaking of some sort of post-modern pseudo-war, which would be somewhat out of context.

[Coll]

Obviously wars aren't beneficial to everyone involved, nobody would suggest that.

[Ahadistan]

offcourse war is something that can always be avoided. but then again not every1 thinks alike. people who are weak and know they can't win, will resort to hate/envy and such and they will want bad for u. just a simple human nature as i c it to b. every1 can learn to live in harmony and all that as we see in EU. but i really think that sometime there will be just one person who'll mess it all up because greed is in our nature..

hah ya u can say im a realist

[Cattraknoff]

offcourse war is something that can always be avoided. but then again not every1 thinks alike. people who are weak and know they can't win, will resort to hate/envy and such and they will want bad for u. just a simple human nature as i c it to b. every1 can learn to live in harmony and all that as we see in EU. but i really think that sometime there will be just one person who'll mess it all up because greed is in our nature..

hah ya u can say im a realist

Many wars can be avoided. Iraq was likely among them. Iran will be among them if that ever happens. Some however cannot. WW2 for instance, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.

[Ahadistan]

Many wars can be avoided. Iraq was likely among them. Iran will be among them if that ever happens. Some however cannot. WW2 for instance, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.
i reckon every1 from time to time gets the urge of flexing their muscles, or simply have too much hate embedded in their hearts. solution for that.....im clueless

[Cattraknoff]

i reckon every1 from time to time gets the urge of flexing their muscles, or simply have too much hate embedded in their hearts. solution for that.....im clueless

The only viable solution is another massive asteroid hitting the Earth and exterminating humanity. I'm sure the world would be much better off.

[Coll]

Surgically remove every heart in the world.

[hideip]

Theres reasons for going to war. They are horrible things, but sometimes it has to be done. As the United States, we have an obligation to look out after the entire World. This is where often we run into trouble.

[Coll]

Pray tell, when did USA receive the obligation to police the world?

[lihen]

People say soilders fight in wars, have anybody even tried to step in the shoes of a soldier, away from home, away from friends, living in enormous pressure, fighting death at each monent.........
war is not good for us civilians, but wars show their real face to the soldiers how fight them, and that's the worst for them.
wars sre due to socio-political impacts, but what about those who die in them, who loose every thing in that.......

[Coll]

I'll let your government know that they shouldn't waste any soldiers defending your home and family then.

[online.education]

Though I am TOTALLY against wars, they have had some positive effects on the economy.
In the US, World War II greatly improved the US economy and brought it out of the great depression.

The Federal Reserve contracted the money supply very sharply. This is the major cause of the Great Depression. Once Fed started increasing the money supply, the economy recovered. There is certainly a correlation between WWII and the surge of US economy from around late 1930s, but that doesn't quite justify WWII. If the corrupt monetary system had not been there, US would have done just fine.