NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what do you think.
Some very important people in history have said it to be these :
1.Assets
2.Women (sometimes considered as an asset, no offense to women though)
3.Religion

What do you think?

1.Money
2.Advancing a political agenda
3.An excuse to increase the government's power

1. Coat-hangers
2. Jesus
3. Allah
4. Superman

1) Ideals
2) Gain honor
3) Gain prestige
4) Rally nation behind one movement, opposition often dries up when the people think the war is a matter of their very survival as a people, a nation, and even on the individual level.

1.Money
2.Advancing a political gender
3.An excuse to increase the government's power


1.Money = asset
2. No idea what you're saying.
3.Some kind of assets as in the medieval times: Land=Power=Assets.

So, you're are agreeing with those people i was referring too.

1. Jews
2. Mohammad
3. Jews

1. Coat-hangers
2. Jesus
3. Allah
4. Superman


1.Moronic
2.More in the name of God than for Jesus.(which is religion)
3.Religion
4.Moronic

Or you are dumb and agreeing with the people i said, or you were just kidding and agreeing with what i said...(choose for yourself)

2. No idea what you're saying.

Lol, I meant agenda, not gender. I fixed it.

1) Ideals
2) Gain honor
3) Gain prestige
4) Rally nation behind one movement, opposition often dries up when the people think the war is a matter of their very survival as a people, a nation, and even on the individual level.


1. Which ideals (that's the question) ?
2.Honor, what do you mean by honor, what do people get with honor.
3. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4. When u rally someone behind something it's for an idea, what's that idea?

1.Money
2.Advancing a political agenda
3.An excuse to increase the government's power

Yeah.

No offence Dacin, but almost every form of conflict is over assets, or beliefs. You were too broad.

1. Jews
2. Mohammad
3. Jews


After this i won't even consider replying to you anymore, as you are too stubborn to listen.

1.Religion
2.Religion
3.If you are trying to be an arse by repeating yourself, you're doing a teriffic job (go on).

War:

The aquisition of resources (including terrirory and slaves (male and female), through the organized use of violence.

War:

The aquisition of resources (including terrirory and slaves (male and female), through the organized use of violence.


I didn't ask for a definition, i asked for reasons.

Here's one for you: Idiocy.

Yeah.

No offence Dacin, but almost every form of conflict is over assets, or beliefs. You were too broad.


Well, communism existed because of two of those beliefs.
Karl Marx said that if you remove assets and religion you'll get a perfect world. (didn't work though, at least not on a scale as large as Russia)

Here's one for you: Idiocy.


Finally, someone. But idiocy alone doesn't lead to war. Something helps the idiocy, like one of those three things.

The big one is pride. Not so much for starting an original conflict, but for 're-matches'. In WWII the Germans wanted to prove that they hadn't really lost WWI, in WWI the French were smarting over losing 1870, et, etc.
Given how many countries have grudges going back centuries, until this is solved we are going to have ongoing wars.

Somehow, organised sports seems to contain the urge to fight wars. The people who would otherwise be cheering on armies are content to cheer on sports teams.

On the three you gave - assets yes.

Religion - sort of. Like patriotism, it's more usually used as an excuse. Also, it's noticable how few religions are involved in starting wars. Consider the Orthodox/Protestant borders in Europe: most people don't even know where they are, they're that peaceful. Exclude Roman Catholicism and Islam from the mix, and religious wars are few and far between.

Women - well, gender inbalance. If large numbers of young guys know that they're never going to get laid, expect trouble. (I wonder if abolishing polygamy in the Middle East would calm the region?) So expect much violence from India and China in the near future!

Every generation deserves at least one war.

Edited: expanding on this.

Wars make little immature teenagers into mature and hardened men. They sort out those who can make it under tough conditions from those who can't. As Malthus stated, wars are necessary to keep populations in check, without them, populations rapidly advance beyond the means to sustain them. If China were to get into a massive war with India and each side lost 25% of their population, it'd be good from a certain point of view in that those who survive would have more space, food, access to medicine, etc.

1. Money-- GWI and GWII
2. Deep hatred-- wars vs Israel
3. Vengence-- WWII
4. It is the right thing to do.-- Former yugoslavia

4. It is the right thing to do.-- Former yugoslavia

Right to kill Serbians who are defending their homeland against muslim fanatics that wanted to seize Kosovo and have it annexed into Albania? Right to kill and rape Serbian women? (Do you know how many women the UN and some NATO nations admit that the soldiers raped? Do you know that the UN and NATO released information about how French, British, and American soldiers were involved in the sex slave trade in Kosovo and Serbia, frequenting forced brothels and buying and selling women. How is that for a just war)

Long live the Volunteer Guard!

Well, communism existed because of two of those beliefs.
Karl Marx said that if you remove assets and religion you'll get a perfect world. (didn't work though, at least not on a scale as large as Russia)

Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't :p

(Though I personally think Deist thought can cooexist perfectly with Communism)

They also killed entire villages of people, children included.

They also killed entire villages of people, children included.


People die in war. The Allies carpet bombed dozens of German cities in WW2 (killing millions if not tens of millions) many of these cities had absolutely no military value (Dresden) The USA bombed Nagaski and Hiroshima, the US put Japanese, Italian, and Germans into camps in the USA during WW2. The USA held the Germans in the camps until 1947-1948 (2-3 years after the war). The USA is nobody to tell the world about humans rights, the USA and the Western Allies need to look in the mirror before they go pointing the finger.

1. human wickedness
2. revenge
3. hate
4. feeling of superiority towards others
5. Relgious/cultural differnences
6. geostrategic interests

1.Power
2.Freedom
3.Caring
4.Hatred
5. Human kinds obivous hatred of it self and to destroy each other. (Fits right in with anti-commie sentiment too! :) )

Wars make little immature teenagers into mature and hardened men. They sort out those who can make it under tough conditions from those who can't. As Malthus stated, wars are necessary to keep populations in check, without them, populations rapidly advance beyond the means to sustain them. If China were to get into a massive war with India and each side lost 25% of their population, it'd be good from a certain point of view in that those who survive would have more space, food, access to medicine, etc.

Thank you, the peanut gallery.
Firstly, wars make little immature teenagers into rotting corpses. Secondly, those who come back are likely to be missing limbs, friends, and basic mental stability. Thirdly, wars do not keep populations in check - quite the opposite. While Western nations - which have enjoyed a long period of peace - have diminishing populations, Afghanistan's population (IIRC) has doubled since the Soviets moved in.
Finally wars tend to destroy whatever is being fought over, with the result that the 'winner' is desperately short of necesssities - encouraging them to invade somewhere else to get what they want, continuing the carnage.

i think it all comes down to assets
the aggressor thinks up an excuse (religion, morality, trumped up charges of some wrong done by the other side) in order to get the (they hope) weaker guys land, money, natural resources, whatever.

Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it won't :p


Although past perfomance is usually a good indicator of future behavior.

Although past perfomance is usually a good indicator of future behavior.

Hara su lege Hellenes?

Ancient reasons for war:
Land
Women
Booty (Not women)
Power
Advancing political careers
Keeping the standing army busy
Overthrowing current government
Slaves

Although past perfomance is usually a good indicator of future behavior.

Pfeh. The "past performance" just showed that dictatorial state-capitalism doesn't work.

Every generation deserves at least one war.

Edited: expanding on this.

Wars make little immature teenagers into mature and hardened men. They sort out those who can make it under tough conditions from those who can't.


Wars make little immature teenageers into wormfood. You may consider that this proved they can't make it under tough conditions.

The tough conditions of war are "being shot at". If there wasn't a war, you wouldn't need to be any good at making it under these conditions. When the admissions tutor to the medical school interviews the immature teenager that one day will operate on my colon, I don't want him to ask himself if the teenager would survive a war. I consider "is this person going to make a good surgeon?" a much more pertinent question.



As Malthus stated, wars are necessary to keep populations in check, without them, populations rapidly advance beyond the means to sustain them. If China were to get into a massive war with India and each side lost 25% of their population, it'd be good from a certain point of view in that those who survive would have more space, food, access to medicine, etc.

Malthus was full of shit. The human race continues to expand at a massive rate, and yet people only starve where? China? not for 50 years. India? well some people are really poor, but very few are actually starving. In fact people are most likely to be starving, poor, die at birth etc in africa. Not because of overpopulation, but because of war. The best indicator of housing standards, food, access to medicine, education etc is not population but economic level.

Do you think that if there was a war in California and the richer half of the population died, the poorer half of the population would suddenly have health insurance?

Do you think that if there was a war in California and the richer half of the population died, the poorer half of the population would suddenly have health insurance?
They would get better jobs

Do you think that if there was a war in California and the richer half of the population died, the poorer half of the population would suddenly have health insurance?

They would get better jobs

You're kidding right?

If the richer half of california died, suddenly the poorer half would develop legal and medical training? And become film stars? Discover entrepreneurial skills that had only been hidden before because some rich guy was oppressing them? In the event that silicon valley was bombed to smithereens, people all over LA would suddenly become brilliant hardware or software engineers? Or would they all be promoted from car polisher to car sales, selling cars to, oh sorry there's no one to sell them to. And no cars.

1. Economics ( including a grab for land and simple greed ).
2. Frustrated national ambitions other than economic.
3. "God told us to" ( including spreading religion by the sword ).
4. Hatred toward another nation, race or religion due primarily to historic reasons.
5. Feeling threatened, whether realistically or not.