NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean... we have a population problem.
Its like "Woh, dude your standin on my foot"
Soooo we need to get rid of some people.
Imagine in 1000 years time, we'll be like "MmmPPf!" cos someones elbow will be in our ear...if were lucky.
So the question IS is war Necessary?
I mean America thrives off war.
Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.
Germany was Pwned fair play but it doesnt ALWAYS work.
Whats ur opinion!

There are better ways of disposing of excess population. Turning them into fast food for example.

Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.


We're really more like "We're bloody brilliant, old chap." Hell yeah is so American.

I reckon we are more inventive when we go to war or plan to go to war. Gives us humans a technological edge that can be then transferred out of war, but that might just be me.

are you trying to make everyone hate you? because between this and the bible thread, that's what happening

Please. Falling birth rates and decaying populations are the way of the future.

We're really more like "We're bloody brilliant, old chap." Hell yeah is so American.

Ha. Yeah, that's us British types.

Seriously, I'd much rather there was no war, but as long as somebody is willing to start one, I'm willing to blow their brains out.

are you trying to make everyone hate you? because between this and the bible thread, that's what happening

If you hate me its likely because i would hate you too :) i just have nasty political affiliations. Im quite a nice chap.
The history teacher used to tease me for being communist and so i have like No politcal empathy :D

War is absolutely necessary. It is the cleaning tool of humanity. It gets rid of the weak and leaves the strong.

As our population grows so will the number of wars we engage in.

There is no population problem.

War is absolutely necessary. It is the cleaning tool of humanity. It gets rid of the weak and leaves the strong.

Bombs don't descriminate between the weak and the strong.

There is no population problem.

"I did not have sexual relationships with..." yeeeh sure there isnt ;p

Bombs don't descriminate between the weak and the strong.

American ones do!!!

**cough**

<.<
>.>
<.<

"I did not have sexual relationships with..." yeeeh sure there isnt ;p


That's a procreation problem isn't it?;)

War.. it's a human thing.

That's a procreation problem isn't it?;)

Maaaaybe ;)

Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.
And Sweden's like "You're going to war AGAIN? Take a break, have some meatballs. Our break is on 200 years and counting, who knows, we might be getting back in the game soon again. *laughs stupidly*"

Bombs don't descriminate between the weak and the strong.

The one thats bombs is strong. The one that is being bombed is weak.

except for wars of genocide, war has an extremely limited effect on population. the losses from war are easily made up by the next generation

humans seem to be addicted to war. its been that way since the species started. i dont see it changing any time soon.

The one thats bombs is strong. The one that is being bombed is weak.

No, the one that bombs knows how to fly a plane and press a button at the appropriate moment, and t he ones being bombed just can't put an AA battery on every rooftop.

No, the one that bombs knows how to fly a plane and press a button at the appropriate moment, and t he ones being bombed just can't put an AA battery on every rooftop.

Whatever you say hippie.

Look into a forest and you will see war. Just as in nature, human wars are fought over entitlement to resources. The political and religious baggage is just a result of our greater social complexity.

The one that bombs is strong. The one that is being bombed is weak.
Very true. It is so difficult to call it "war" these days, our governments don't even bother to make it official.

The one thats bombs is strong. The one that is being bombed is weak.and the one who bombs themselves are just stupid.

The one thats bombs is strong. The one that is being bombed is weak.

Yep, Americans sure are pussies.

War is absolutely necessary. It is the cleaning tool of humanity. It gets rid of the weak and leaves the strong.

As our population grows so will the number of wars we engage in.

1. There is no population problem, the Earth is a really, really, really, really big place, and current projections are that world population will level out at about 9 billion people and probably start to decrease. As nations become wealthy and industrialized, population rates tend to level out and even decrease. This is interesting because there will probably be very few white people in 1000 years because we have been the first to industrialize.

2. I think it's an ancient proverb: War spares not the brave but the cowardly.

I mean... we have a population problem.
Its like "Woh, dude your standin on my foot"
Soooo we need to get rid of some people.
Imagine in 1000 years time, we'll be like "MmmPPf!" cos someones elbow will be in our ear...if were lucky.
So the question IS is war Necessary?
I mean America thrives off war.
Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.
Germany was Pwned fair play but it doesnt ALWAYS work.
Whats ur opinion!
Malthus said it best: without human conflict, there will not be enough food for the population, so there'll be problems.

^_^ And humanity has evolved to the point that problems manifest in the form of overcompensating machines of mayhem and destruction.

Almost all of our most brilliant inventions have been made during wartime. Without war (which is in essence an extention of human conflict), there will be greatly reduced technological evolution. If we are to get rid of all human conflict, society will stagnate, civilization will collapse, and when ET gets here, he'll think we're a bunch of bloody idiots.

Whatever you say hippie.

Dude, you should, like, lighten up, and accept peace in the-

Ooo, like, a butterfly!

War is humanities most produced product

We're really more like "We're bloody brilliant, old chap."

Damn right! Jolly good show old bean!

There are one or two times that war can be justfied, although few and far between. Take a look at the Just War Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Just_War_Theory)

For a devoted machiavel such as myself, yes, it as a form of diplomacy and statecraft.

war is a mass human response of pissed off-ness. if someone thinks something is not fair on them or someone else, and they're able to influence a lot of people, and it gets in to that stage that they think that violence is the best way of forcing their shit, it usually gets into a war. just killing people to get your way.

War is necessary at times. Not all situations and not all governments can be negotiated about, and if it is in a nation's interests to declare war, they should do so. Of course, that means that other nations threatened by these actions will respond in kind. In my opinion, there is nothing morally wrong with aggressive war, only the means with which it is fought.

I mean... we have a population problem.
Its like "Woh, dude your standin on my foot"
Soooo we need to get rid of some people.
Imagine in 1000 years time, we'll be like "MmmPPf!" cos someones elbow will be in our ear...if were lucky.
So the question IS is war Necessary?
I mean America thrives off war.
Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.
Germany was Pwned fair play but it doesnt ALWAYS work.
Whats ur opinion!

OR, (radical idea here, guys) we could just have fewer kids! Increasing women's rights and introducing sex-ed programs are proven to lower birth rates in African countries. It's too bad there isn't an extremely wealthy country that currently only funds abstinence programs but that could easily change it's policies...

War is necessary at times. Not all situations and not all governments can be negotiated about, and if it is in a nation's interests to declare war, they should do so. Of course, that means that other nations threatened by these actions will respond in kind. In my opinion, there is nothing morally wrong with aggressive war, only the means with which it is fought.

So killing innocent people isn't morally wrong? That's news to me.

So killing innocent people isn't morally wrong? That's news to me.

Yes, it is wrong, and that is why there is the qualifier that the means can be unjust, for example the actions of the Japanese in China. But attacking an enemy and fighting their soliders is not murder, because active soliders are always a legitimate target.

Yes, it is wrong, and that is why there is the qualifier that the means can be unjust, for example the actions of the Japanese in China. But attacking an enemy and fighting their soliders is not murder, because active soliders are always a legitimate target.

Question: If it's right for an American soldier to kill an Iraqi soldier, is it equally right for an Iraqi soldier to kill an American?

Question: If it's right for an American soldier to kill an Iraqi soldier, is it equally right for an Iraqi soldier to kill an American?

An American solider? Absolutely, because that is an active military target; it would be wrong to kill an American citizen not involved in an actual combat/combat related role, as well as it would be wrong to kill an Iraqi citizen not involved in an actual combat/combat related role.

An American solider? Absolutely, because that is an active military target; it would be wrong to kill an American citizen not involved in an actual combat/combat related role, as well as it would be wrong to kill an Iraqi citizen not involved in an actual combat/combat related role.

Just to let you know, I have never heard of a war during which only soldiers died. It just doesn't happen, espcially where the US military is concerned.

American Soldier in Afghanistan: Look, a restaurant! Osama Bin Laden could theoretically like to eat there! If we let him go, we'll be in deep trouble. But instead of checking inside, we'll just drop a few bombs to save time!

Just to let you know, I have never heard of a war during which only soldiers died. It just doesn't happen, espcially where the US military is concerned.

American Soldier in Afghanistan: Look, a restaurant! Osama Bin Laden could theoretically like to eat there! If we let him go, we'll be in deep trouble. But instead of checking inside, we'll just drop a few bombs to save time!

Yes, but the goal of any responsible military planner is to minimize casualties. It's not going to happen, and it often cannot be averted, but the people responsible for calling the attacks or airstrikes should be responsible for their actions if they fail to minimize civilian casualties.

I mean... we have a population problem.
Its like "Woh, dude your standin on my foot"
Soooo we need to get rid of some people.
Imagine in 1000 years time, we'll be like "MmmPPf!" cos someones elbow will be in our ear...if were lucky.
So the question IS is war Necessary?
I mean America thrives off war.
Britain is like "Hell yeh we're great" because of war.
Germany was Pwned fair play but it doesnt ALWAYS work.
Whats ur opinion!
I was inclined to say "Maybe next time?" - then again I believe that we have definitely learned a lesson. War sucks. Always has, always will.

To answer your question:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bush_warhuh.jpg

As a final thought - if all the money that has been pumped into war would've been used to accomplish something in medicine, foodstuffs and renewable energy ressources, just imagine how far humanity could have come.

Yes, but the goal of any responsible military planner is to minimize casualties. It's not going to happen, and it often cannot be averted, but the people responsible for calling the attacks or airstrikes should be responsible for their actions if they fail to minimize civilian casualties.

The best way to minimalize casualties is probably to end war, don't you think?

The best way to minimalize casualties is probably to end war, don't you think?

Ideally. War should be reserved until it is absolutely necessary, and all possible diplomatic, economic and political means of persuasion should be used to try and achieve the goals of a war. I'd even shy away from economic sanctions, since they usually just impoverish the people and radicalize the government further.

If we are to get rid of all human conflict, society will stagnate, civilization will collapse, and when ET gets here, he'll think we're a bunch of bloody idiots.

Yep, and if we're all standing around killing each other, he'll be superimpressed and bow to our superior intellect. Then we can go to war with him, and claim we were helping his race by keeping their population down. :rolleyes:

Ideally. War should be reserved until it is absolutely necessary, and all possible diplomatic, economic and political means of persuasion should be used to try and achieve the goals of a war. I'd even shy away from economic sanctions, since they usually just impoverish the people and radicalize the government further.

In my opinion, war is never nessacary. If an enemy army invaded Canada, I'd sooner die than pick up a gun.

Yep, and if we're all standing around killing each other, he'll be superimpressed and bow to our superior intellect. Then we can go to war with him, and claim we were helping his race by keeping their population down. :rolleyes:
While I wasn't particularly fond of E.T. - if that's the plan, count me out!

Yep, and if we're all standing around killing each other, he'll be superimpressed and bow to our superior intellect. Then we can go to war with him, and claim we were helping his race by keeping their population down. :rolleyes:
Well it's your choice. Decadance and collapse, or spead humanity to the stars and start blowing the shit out of things on a galactic scale.

The first destroys the intrinsic soul of the human race. If there's no war, there is no human conflict. Humans by in large define themselves by merit, which is achieved by comparing them to others. You find that out by conflict. We'd literally not know what to do. Why make a new type of car if the old one is at least decently agreeable to everyone? Why colonize space? People would only argue about who got to go. You see where this is going?

The second allows for more stories, lives, and living, breathing people than the first could ever imagine. Sure war sucks, but the only way humans are able to better themselves is through conflict.

It's not doing well in school, it's being smart enough to outwit all of the other students and make the grade in the class. It's not about riding on all of your abilities, it's about making a hundred and screwing over everyone else's attempts at getting a curve on that massive history exam. It's not about being proficient at your job, it's about being so good all of the others look like lazy bums. It's about Otto von Bismark, Eisenower, Churchill, Alexander, Leonidas, and Reagan, not 'peaceful and cooperative development,' Lyndon B Johnson, or Chamberlin. It's most definatly not about small-town communes, it's about Henry Ford being able to build a car in less than eight hours, and sell it cheaper than anyone could imagine, muscling everyone else out.

If men were angels, there would be no conflict, and therefore no war. But to not have war is to either start building up tension until war will be quite terminal, or take away the human soul.

Sides, if ET can't handle a race as aflicted as we are, then they should probably have stayed home.



There are one or two times that war can be justfied, although few and far between. Take a look at the Just War Theory
I have a single problem with that theory:
Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Sometimes a lost cause is the only one worth fighting for. That's like saying that the Italians should have given up in their attempts to unify because it was futile to resist Austrian rule.

In my opinion, war is never nessacary. If an enemy army invaded Canada, I'd sooner die than pick up a gun.

Sometimes, it is a greater wrong to do nothing than to fight.

Sometimes, it is a greater wrong to do nothing than to fight.
But it is even worse to fight the right fight for the wrong reasons.

But it is even worse to fight the right fight for the wrong reasons.

Yes, that's why the decision to fight should ultimately come from you, not anyone else.

that's the bright side to war, but, if we want population control, what's wrong with abortion? :D

Sometimes, it is a greater wrong to do nothing than to fight.

That's true, for non-violent fights (eg: challenging a government policy). But I am a pure pacifist, and, as such, believe that it is never right to hurt or kill another, even if the other is violent.

The invasion of Denmark in WWII is the best example for how the right decision can be not to "fight the good fight", but to make the best out of the situation you're facing.

The invasion of Denmark in WWII is the best example for how the right decision can be not to "fight the good fight", but to make the best out of the situation you're facing.

... nipples?
The danish were like "...woh...Nazi's...k."
Thats not good.

Man will grow tired of love ,peace and art before he grows tired of war..


Hey Heron makked warrior did tou get your name from a book ( Heron marked Blade)

That's true, for non-violent fights (eg: challenging a government policy). But I am a pure pacifist, and, as such, believe that it is never right to hurt or kill another, even if the other is violent.

HaHa why so if your life was threatened you wouldnt defend yourself or if your way of life or people or family were in danger you wouldnt kill to save them or even hurt someone?

I have to say that if anything like that does happen you deserve to die

if anyone threatened my life , my family or tried to poersecute me for my beliefs i'd fight and kill.

" It won't be a candle of love that saves this world , it will be a warriors flame"