NationStates Jolt Archive

Is war worth it? Think about the advancements war has given us. Without war our word would be hundreds(possibly thousands) of years behind

most inventions today(such as the internet) were originally for military use, and eventually evolved into civillian use.

military conquests have led to the creation of many nations, great nations at that; who have contributed much to the world.

On the other hand: War causes death, and destruction. Starvation, famine, rape, and the "beast" to come out in one

POLL COMING

War is never worth it. It is always something to be avoided.
Even a defensive war is still wrong, it just happens to be neccesary.

If the resources invested into the military were invested elsewhere, those branches of society would provide us with technological advances instead.

The self-defense of an oppressed class against its oppressors is legitimate, as is aid to that oppressed class by other powers. Most wars between states are illegitimate and immoral.

Whether or not war is worth it, struggle is inevitable. We have to try to make the best of it.

Well look how far the Cold War advanced us. To the moon. Not a single shot was fired and no one died. Utterly pointless, but tremendous technological achievements.

Well look how far the Cold War advanced us. To the moon. Not a single shot was fired and no one died. Utterly pointless, but tremendous technological achievements.
Ha!

Korea? Vietnam? Afganistan?

The opression of the Soviet Bloc?

???

Ha!

Korea? Vietnam? Afganistan?

???
Those were more like side effects, IMHO.

Ha!

Korea? Vietnam? Afganistan?

The opression of the Soviet Bloc?

???

Just minor costs of our "tremendous technological achievements." What are you, anti-progress?

Ha!

Korea? Vietnam? Afganistan?

The opression of the Soviet Bloc?

???
I guess I should've been more specific...Cold War against the Soviet Union.

And what good came out of those aforementioned wars? hmmm, We stopped the eminent spread of Communism :rolleyes:

Just because war has lead to good things, doesn't men the war itself was good. WWII took us out of the depression, but we would've gotten out eventually without it without the millions of deaths the war resulted in. Alos, some of the technology just isn't necessary. the cold war with the soviet union lead to us going to the moon. what a waste of time, research, and money. What practical reason do we have for being on the moon? War times lead to the development of the atomic bomb, which an only be bad. the us has enough of them to blow the earth up 30 times over. There is no good reason for that.

Is war worth it? Think about the advancements war has given us. Without war our word would be hundreds(possibly thousands) of years behind

most inventions today(such as the internet) were originally for military use, and eventually evolved into civillian use.

military conquests have led to the creation of many nations, great nations at that; who have contributed much to the world.

On the other hand: War causes death, and destruction. Starvation, famine, rape, and the "beast" to come out in one

POLL COMING

You forgot "war shakes up the foundations of a society, all great changes in human liberty and equality have come as the consequence of, or during a war. This is rarely, however, intended". The wars fought by France led to the economic collapse of the ancien regime and the revolution, the Indian wars led to the British crown seeking to get more revenue from the American states and sowed the seeds of revolution, womens right came on in leaps and bounds during and after both world wars, the Bolshevik revolution was a direct consequence of the inept management of the Russian economy during WWI, the Welfare State in the UK was created when the social fabric of the nation was shaken up by WW2..."

etc

It's still not enough to justify war though.

As my Grandfather, a Spy in WWII, said to me, "It is so easy for old men to send young men to die." War is not a necessary evil, though sometimes it is the last and final resort.

Also, one must remember that the "spread of communism" may not have been a bad thing. Communism didn't work, but the offset of our destruction of the Soviet Union is that much of the land controlled by the USSR is now incredibly unstable. Additionally, the US no longer has a "check." Almost every major Civil Rights advancement in the last forty years has come about because of the USSR threatening to embarrass the crap out of the US.

Also, we engaged in submarine warfare with the USSR for years. Never publicized much. Additionally, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (in which we put Osama in power), were direct confrontations between USSR soldiers and US soldiers. The Soviet Union often supplied weapons, vehicles, planes, and soldiers on both sides.

I can't find the link, but there was a great special about the Soviet MiG piolets in Vietnam, about how the USSR employed several (or maybe one...) ace squad of MiGs to fight against US soldiers.

But, I degress...War is hell. Only in acts of self defense (NEVER in acts of preemptive attack) is War justified. You can amass soldiers along the border of a country, you can threaten all you want. You can speak softly and carry a big stick, but war is an absolute last resort.

If the resources invested into the military were invested elsewhere, those branches of society would provide us with technological advances instead...If the resources invested into the military were invested elswhere, we would have been conquered long ago and no technological advances would have been possible. If we are not able to defend ourselves, we will not be free to do anything other than to be subjects of those more powerfull than ourselves. That is human nature. That is the brute reality of the world in which we live. If you don't recognize it, you are doomed to become a victim of it.

Well look how far the Cold War advanced us. To the moon. Not a single shot was fired and no one died. Utterly pointless, but tremendous technological achievements.


I wouldn't call the Cold War a war.

If the resources invested into the military were invested elswhere, we would have been conquered long ago and no technological advances would have been possible. If we are not able to defend ourselves, we will not be free to do anything other than to be subjects of those more powerfull than ourselves. That is human nature. That is the brute reality of the world in which we live. If you don't recognize it, you are doomed to become a victim of it.

I was speaking in general terms, that is, in terms of the human species, not a specific state.

As for "defending ourselves," it is quite obvious that current levels of military spending among the imperialist powers have far more to do with securing that imperialism than with any sort of self-defense.

I wouldn't call the Cold War a war.

Again, read my post. We fought a bloody war with the USSR. We just never moved soldiers up to their boarders. Instead, we both sent men and supplies into other countries and masked our combat.

War is a necessary evil

Diplomacy only works with reasonable people

War is a necessary evil

Diplomacy only works with reasonable people
what is "reasonable"?

Those were more like side effects, IMHO.

Those are what are called proxy wars. The war in Iraq may someday be labled a proxy war.

Those are what are called proxy wars. The war in Iraq may someday be labled a proxy war.

Of who against who?

Again, read my post. We fought a bloody war with the USSR. We just never moved soldiers up to their boarders. Instead, we both sent men and supplies into other countries and masked our combat.

Having other nations fight proxy wars is NOT fighthing the war yourself. I mean that's the whole point.

We may as well call the War on Drugs a real war.

what is "reasonable"?
People willing to listen and make compromises to attain their goal through peaceful means

Methinks you can't do that if you're goal is, for example, the extermination of a race ;)

...Additionally, the US no longer has a "check." Almost every major Civil Rights advancement in the last forty years has come about because of the USSR threatening to embarrass the crap out of the US...Dude. What are you smoking? We have equal rights for women because USSR did what? We have equal rights for minorities because USSR did what? You either need to check into rehab or check into reality. (or at least pass the duchy)

WAR! war kicks ass. Seriuosly, its fucking fun as hell, I personnally have never been to war, but I've talked to allot of people who were, and even some Nam Vets loved it. Maybe them and people like me are crazy...but you know, its people like us that win the wars.:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :mad: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ok, serious-time here.

War is the most totally involving, intense, terrifying, boring, hectic, exhaultant thing in which any human being can ever be involved. Being in war will either make you or break you. It addicts you to adrenalin, testosterone, seratonin and endorphine. It can change you completely, and not always for the better. Friends who fight with you will become your brothers. After time, your enemies may become your brothers as well.

War will often make you more reverent for life, including your own. It is also the ultimate aphrodisiac.

War destroys buildings, bridges, roads, livestock, men, women, and children, and sometimes entire infrastructures, economies and nations. War is almost always incredibly hard on civilians, even when conflict never comes close.

War is a conundrum, a contradiction, a court of last resort, and a tragedy.

War will always happen as long as human nature includes greed, envy, rage and desperation.

War is never totally "right," but is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

War should always, always be the last resort of a free people.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too soon fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

I was speaking in general terms, that is, in terms of the human species, not a specific state.

As for "defending ourselves," it is quite obvious that current levels of military spending among the imperialist powers have far more to do with securing that imperialism than with any sort of self-defense.I was speaking in general terms also. "Imperialisism", in general, means taking over other countries or territories. In case you haven't noticed, we don't do that.

what is "reasonable"?Is this supposed to be intelligent? If you don't understand "reasonable," don't waste our time. Look it up!

What do you mean by "war"? For example is armed humanitarian intervention war? What about other types of armed conflicts? I assume that you define war as armed conflict between two or more professional military forces.

The most obvious instance of when war can be legitimised is to stage non-partisan humanitarian intervention when Human Rights are being grossly violated. The second instance would be in acts of self-defence from a direct military attack.

I would provide strong limits to this second definition. For example the government is meant to be the representative forum of the people and the military as an appendage of government should therefore be maintained and directed for the protection of the people (as opposed to “national interest”). Such a government must be democratically formed and subscribe and be held to the Declaration of Human Rights in its actions including how it directs the military and war-time conducts.

Obviously you need a series of constraints because simply listing “self-defence” as an excuse for war has been used numerous times as a pretext for invasion (Manchuria, Poland, Norway) by defining self-defence to mean the self-defence of a nationalistic ideology. A government also needs to be democratically elected and constrained by democratic constitutions because the majority of the people a majority of the time do not want war. Of course authoritarian and nationalistic governments have been elected before (the USSR had elections after all). There also needs to be an inherent respect for the UNDHR to make aggressive warfare illegitimate unless sanctioned by the international community in which case there must be a direct and obvious threat to the upholding the UNDHR for the population of one of more nations.

Well these are just my thoughts.

Having other nations fight proxy wars is NOT fighthing the war yourself. I mean that's the whole point.

We may as well call the War on Drugs a real war.

Again, please read the post. USSR soldiers and equipment fought in the war. If Russian soldiers died, then we fought against the Soviet Union.

Regardless, I think one nation funding another nation to fight a war is as close as possible to declaring war.


Dude. What are you smoking? We have equal rights for women because USSR did what? We have equal rights for minorities because USSR did what? You either need to check into rehab or check into reality. (or at least pass the duchy)

Segregation was originially an issue of non-involvement by the US government. They did not take action against them. Eventually, when the USSR discovered this "second side" to US racial "equality," the Soviet Union began to heckle the US. Faced with international embarassment (for, remember, the US was trying to win a war at the time), Eisenhower felt the need to support integration as a gesture to the world that the US was serious about equality. If that political pressure hadn't been there, then it was quite possible that the Little Rock Nine (who were then supported by Eisenhower) would not have stepped foot in a classroom.

Ok, serious-time here.

War is the most totally involving, intense, terrifying, boring, hectic, exhaultant thing in which any human being can ever be involved. Being in war will either make you or break you. It addicts you to adrenalin, testosterone, seratonin and endorphine. It can change you completely, and not always for the better. Friends who fight with you will become your brothers. After time, your enemies may become your brothers as well.

War will often make you more reverent for life, including your own. It is also the ultimate aphrodisiac.

War destroys buildings, bridges, roads, livestock, men, women, and children, and sometimes entire infrastructures, economies and nations. War is almost always incredibly hard on civilians, even when conflict never comes close.

War is a conundrum, a contradiction, a court of last resort, and a tragedy.

War will always happen as long as human nature includes greed, envy, rage and desperation.

War is never totally "right," but is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

War should always, always be the last resort of a free people.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too soon fond of it." - Robert E. LeeAmen.

People willing to listen and make compromises to attain their goal through peaceful means

Methinks you can't do that if you're goal is, for example, the extermination of a race ;)
And you're implying that those types of reasonable people are in power of any country? :D

Segregation was originially an issue of non-involvement by the US government. They did not take action against them. Eventually, when the USSR discovered this "second side" to US racial "equality," the Soviet Union began to heckle the US. Faced with international embarassment (for, remember, the US was trying to win a war at the time), Eisenhower felt the need to support integration as a gesture to the world that the US was serious about equality. If that political pressure hadn't been there, then it was quite possible that the Little Rock Nine (who were then supported by Eisenhower) would not have stepped foot in a classroom.I was alive at the time (I was there) and, trust me, consideration of USSR opinion was not a factor. Our own conscience as a nation, given a nudge by certain couragous individuals, was all we needed. The Soviet Union was not a definitive factor.

Mmm...I've decided to introduce a little something extra to this discussion:

Native Americans often used raids and warfare as a way of life. By sacking villages that were weaker than them and securing food, tools, and trinkets - as well as the occassional prisoner - they were able to sustain themselves.

Is war in this nature - where war is fought for sustinance rather than expanding a nation's goals - justified?

Case and point: the Blackfeet tribe of the Northwest. Once a powerful tribe that encompased parts of Montana, Canada, and deep into the Rocky Mountains, the Blackfeet susained themselves by raiding nearby villages for food, supplies, and men. When the US abolished inter-tribal warfare, the Blackfeet soon sunk into a steep depression - as did all warrior nations - since they had no other skills to sustain their people.

Now, should war of that nature be held in a different standard than, oh, say the World War (I regard WWI and WWII as the same war...just with a 20 year peace treaty...) where the objectives were not to sustain their people but to expand greedily and take?

I have no real opinion on this...just throwing it out there...

I was speaking in general terms also. "Imperialisism", in general, means taking over other countries or territories. In case you haven't noticed, we don't do that.

You were pointing out that it would be unwise for a specific country to reduce military spending, because that would increase the chance of another country to attack. Unless you are fearful of extra-terrestrial invasion, that is not a rebuttal to my implicit call for a general reduction in humanity's investment in war and weaponry.

In case you haven't noticed, "we" (and others) do exactly that, with vivid examples on the news quite often these days.

We, the more we consider and observe the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believe neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. We thus repudiate the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
Who agrees?

I was alive at the time (I was there) and, trust me, consideration of USSR opinion was not a factor. Our own conscience as a nation, given a nudge by certain couragous individuals, was all we needed. The Soviet Union was not a definitive factor.

*Sigh* Please, read about Eisenhower's decisions leading up to that event. He did not have to send the national guard in, nor - for a long while - did he intend to. Several Civil rights leaders have attested that appeal to the Soviet Union eventually shifted Eisenhower's neutral stance. This is a more recent theory. My professor showed us some intriguing evidence cataloging the time of the Soviet announcement to the US, and the sudden policy change of Eisenhower. It was quite fascinating...

...having a hard time finding it online, though.

Ultimately, you are right - it was the people who had to back the plans. But there was no political muscle till the Soviet Union pushed a little. Though, I doubt that was the USSR's intent. They wanted to just embarrass the US and gain a few points in the diplomatic arena...

I was alive at the time (I was there) and, trust me, consideration of USSR opinion was not a factor. Our own conscience as a nation, given a nudge by certain couragous individuals, was all we needed. The Soviet Union was not a definitive factor.

Your own "conscience as a nation" was content not to care for at least a decade afterward.

The Soviet Union probably was not, however, a significant factor; the significant factor was the popular struggle of Blacks against their oppression. The government, the "conscience as a nation," nobody powerful did anything until they were forced to.

Mmm...I've decided to introduce a little something extra to this discussion:

Native Americans often used raids and warfare as a way of life. By sacking villages that were weaker than them and securing food, tools, and trinkets - as well as the occassional prisoner - they were able to sustain themselves.

Is war in this nature - where war is fought for sustinance rather than expanding a nation's goals - justified?

Case and point: the Blackfeet tribe of the Northwest. Once a powerful tribe that encompased parts of Montana, Canada, and deep into the Rocky Mountains, the Blackfeet susained themselves by raiding nearby villages for food, supplies, and men. When the US abolished inter-tribal warfare, the Blackfeet soon sunk into a steep depression - as did all warrior nations - since they had no other skills to sustain their people.

Now, should war of that nature be held in a different standard than, oh, say the World War (I regard WWI and WWII as the same war...just with a 20 year peace treaty...) where the objectives were not to sustain their people but to expand greedily and take?

I have no real opinion on this...just throwing it out there...

Hmm that’s very interesting.

I would still say no because there are alternatives (trade, co-operation and innovation) that could have been used to satisfy the supposed causes for their raids. However the fact these were raids rather then total conflicts suggests it might have been more an issue of keeping weaker groups in line and not moving into Blackfoot territory. It also doesn’t meet any of my justifications on page two seeing as Human Rights are universal they apply to everyone at all times and raiding a village for its winter stores and collecting some slaves violates those rights.

Ok, serious-time here.

War is the most totally involving, intense, terrifying, boring, hectic, exhaultant thing in which any human being can ever be involved. Being in war will either make you or break you. It addicts you to adrenalin, testosterone, seratonin and endorphine. It can change you completely, and not always for the better. Friends who fight with you will become your brothers. After time, your enemies may become your brothers as well.

War will often make you more reverent for life, including your own. It is also the ultimate aphrodisiac.

War destroys buildings, bridges, roads, livestock, men, women, and children, and sometimes entire infrastructures, economies and nations. War is almost always incredibly hard on civilians, even when conflict never comes close.

War is a conundrum, a contradiction, a court of last resort, and a tragedy.

War will always happen as long as human nature includes greed, envy, rage and desperation.

War is never totally "right," but is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

War should always, always be the last resort of a free people.

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we should grow too soon fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
:rolleyes:

Hmm that’s very interesting.

I would still say no because there are alternatives (trade, co-operation and innovation) that could have been used to satisfy the supposed causes for their raids. However the fact these were raids rather then total conflicts suggests it might have been more an issue of keeping weaker groups in line and not moving into Blackfoot territory. It also doesn’t meet any of my justifications on page two seeing as Human Rights are universal they apply to everyone at all times and raiding a village for its winter stores and collecting some slaves violates those rights.
Ah! Devil's Advocate here:

It was not common for raids to involve killings. Though, they did happen, the primary objective was to disable and incapacitate your foe so you could capture them. Captured prisoners would be integrated into the ranks.

And Devil's Advocate's...er...Advocate?:

Additionally, since nations encompassed a large number of smaller nomadic tribes with common political or genealogical ties, raids could turn into the destruction of entire, minute nation-states. True, most were re-integrated into the warrior's society, but they lost their national sovereignty as well.

Another case and point: Sparta ran on captured slaves. Without those slaves - "restocked" mainly through wars - the entire Spartan political structure would collapse. They relied on war for survival: once more, is that justified?

I'm interested to see the responses...

Another case and point: Sparta ran on captured slaves. Without those slaves - "restocked" mainly through wars - the entire Spartan political structure would collapse. They relied on war for survival: once more, is that justified?

No. If political structures are based on theft and exploitation, they should not survive; they should be replaced with something better.

We, the more we consider and observe the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believe neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. We thus repudiate the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

Who agrees?

Not me, I felt ill on reading that, like the time I helplessly watched the family dog die slowly after her neck was crushed by a car. If people really think humans need to face "trials", that "the utulity of perpetual peace" is non-existant, and that we should strive for a "stamp of nobility" forged in blood, then I don't know how I could ever wake up in the morning and face such a horrific society. After reading that, I've never felt so god damned shaken up.

You were pointing out that it would be unwise for a specific country to reduce military spending, because that would increase the chance of another country to attack. Unless you are fearful of extra-terrestrial invasion, that is not a rebuttal to my implicit call for a general reduction in humanity's investment in war and weaponry.

In case you haven't noticed, "we" (and others) do exactly that, with vivid examples on the news quite often these days.OK. I agree that it would be great if there were "a general reduction in humanity's investment in war and weaponry." I say (as a country), "You go first." If you won't, I refuse to leave myself defensless based on the (baseless) hope that you mean no ill will towards me. To do otherwise, would be naive, and would be nothing short of inviting agression.

After reading that, I've never felt so god damned shaken up.
You have a telegram.

We, the more we consider and observe the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believe neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. We thus repudiate the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

Who wrote that? Some Fascist?

No, I do not agree, I think the sentiment is disgusting. War is mass killing, there is nothing glorious and nothing noble about it.

Who wrote that? Some Fascist?

No, I do not agree, I think the sentiment is disgusting. War is mass killing, there is nothing glorious and nothing noble about it.
In full agreement.

*Sigh* Please, read about Eisenhower's decisions leading up to that event. He did not have to send the national guard in, nor - for a long while - did he intend to. Several Civil rights leaders have attested that appeal to the Soviet Union eventually shifted Eisenhower's neutral stance. This is a more recent theory. My professor showed us some intriguing evidence cataloging the time of the Soviet announcement to the US, and the sudden policy change of Eisenhower. It was quite fascinating...

...having a hard time finding it online, though.

Ultimately, you are right - it was the people who had to back the plans. But there was no political muscle till the Soviet Union pushed a little. Though, I doubt that was the USSR's intent. They wanted to just embarrass the US and gain a few points in the diplomatic arena...*Sigh* I am stating that it was not the pressure of the USSR, but the pressure of the American public that ultimately forced Eisenhower's hand. "This is a more recent theory." I'm not sure that recentness adds legitimacy to history. My history comes from the period in which the actual events occured. You can trust in contemporary history, or revisionist history. I choose to trust those who were actually witnesses to the events.

Ah! Devil's Advocate here:

It was not common for raids to involve killings. Though, they did happen, the primary objective was to disable and incapacitate your foe so you could capture them. Captured prisoners would be integrated into the ranks.

And Devil's Advocate's...er...Advocate?:

Additionally, since nations encompassed a large number of smaller nomadic tribes with common political or genealogical ties, raids could turn into the destruction of entire, minute nation-states. True, most were re-integrated into the warrior's society, but they lost their national sovereignty as well.

Another case and point: Sparta ran on captured slaves. Without those slaves - "restocked" mainly through wars - the entire Spartan political structure would collapse. They relied on war for survival: once more, is that justified?

I'm interested to see the responses...

That’s an interesting approach to take however I would still maintain my original position. The threatened destruction of a micro-state would justify their self-defence against attack from the larger tribal body but only implicates that attacking group of grossly violating Human rights. The cultural significance attached to these activities would only justify them from the point of a relativist, which I am certainly not.

As for Sparta the necessity of slave labour in the functioning of a cohesive economic and political state still doesn’t justify the act of slavery. In the same way slave labour and concentration camps were an important cultural/economic/political part of Nazi culture this does not justify their presence and it certainly doesn’t exonerate the Nazis from condemnation and abhorrence. The legitimacy of these activities would depend on which cultural perspective you subscribed to, one divide between the enslaver and the enslaved.

As a believer in universal Rights there can be no legitimising cultural factor relevant to slavery or aggressive warfare.

Who agrees?I think there is merit to this argument, though I lament that it might be the Achiles heel of the human race.

Who wrote that? Some Fascist?
You get a cookie.

I give up, no one who agrees will do so openly (although they will vote for the equivalent in the poll).

It actually comes from Mussolini's entry in the Italian Encyclopedia regarding Fascism.

Here's the whole thing, just for reference.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

You get a cookie.

I give up, no one who agrees will do so openly (although they will vote for the equivalent in the poll).

It actually comes from Mussolini's entry in the Italian Encyclopedia regarding Fascism.

Here's the whole thing, just for reference.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
Outing fascists is more difficult than that.

Mmm...I've decided to introduce a little something extra to this discussion:

Native Americans often used raids and warfare as a way of life. By sacking villages that were weaker than them and securing food, tools, and trinkets - as well as the occassional prisoner - they were able to sustain themselves.

Is war in this nature - where war is fought for sustinance rather than expanding a nation's goals - justified?

Case and point: the Blackfeet tribe of the Northwest. Once a powerful tribe that encompased parts of Montana, Canada, and deep into the Rocky Mountains, the Blackfeet susained themselves by raiding nearby villages for food, supplies, and men. When the US abolished inter-tribal warfare, the Blackfeet soon sunk into a steep depression - as did all warrior nations - since they had no other skills to sustain their people.

Now, should war of that nature be held in a different standard than, oh, say the World War (I regard WWI and WWII as the same war...just with a 20 year peace treaty...) where the objectives were not to sustain their people but to expand greedily and take?

I have no real opinion on this...just throwing it out there...Damn! I wrote a very relevant, long, touching reply to this post, but it was consumed by my computer!!! The gist of it was, that I don't think any tribes really relied on war for their sustenance, but that it was much more of a way to prove bravery, or more precisely to become a human. There was little chance of annihilating the enemy. Rather, the enemy added meaning to one's own existence, actually added a great deal to the meaning of one's own life. There were no missiles launched from subs 1000 miles away, or dropped from 10,000 feet. War was personal and immediate, and kept on a human scale.

The world was much larger then, and I think that people had much better perspective on their appropriate place in it.

*Sigh* I am stating that it was not the pressure of the USSR, but the pressure of the American public that ultimately forced Eisenhower's hand. "This is a more recent theory." I'm not sure that recentness adds legitimacy to history. My history comes from the period in which the actual events occured. You can trust in contemporary history, or revisionist history. I choose to trust those who were actually witnesses to the events.

So do I. Civil Rights activists who helped in the campaign for Little Rock have acknowledged the Soviet Union's hand, as well as several of Eisenhower's aids, as well as a timeline I witnessed breaking down a couple months.

But, whatever. I don't want to argue about such an event here. I'm more interested in the ideas that are being tossed around. You have your beliefs about the time, and I have mine: let us leave it at that.

---

And, to Neu Leonstein, remember who Mussolini was. Fascism aside (which, let's be frank, is a government which has to propogate war in order to build its image as a strong state), Mussolini was a bully and a brute. Although he was deported to Italy to conduct military service, the man twice fled to Switzerland to escape fighting. In fact, the best fighting he did was stab a fellow student while in grade school and help to beat-up a few dissadents.

Once more, I quote my Grandfather: "It is so easy for old men to send young men to die." Same with, in my opinion, the warhawks today. Shall we let those who have not fought in war claim war's glory, and let those who have seen the horrors of combat keep their dark visions a closed secret? War is hell. It has never been fun and games, or a way to test men's mettle. Ever.

There is nothing more important or vital in life than war.

Who wrote that? Some Fascist?

No, I do not agree, I think the sentiment is disgusting. War is mass killing, there is nothing glorious and nothing noble about it.
you couldnt be more wrong

Damn! I wrote a very relevant, long, touching reply to this post, but it was consumed by my computer!!! The gist of it was, that I don't think any tribes really relied on war for their sustenance, but that it was much more of a way to prove bravery, or more precisely to become a human. There was little chance of annihilating the enemy. Rather, the enemy added meaning to one's own existence, actually added a great deal to the meaning of one's own life. There were no missiles launched from subs 1000 miles away, or dropped from 10,000 feet. War was personal and immediate, and kept on a human scale.

The world was much larger then, and I think that people had much better perspective on their appropriate place in it.

S'okay. :p

But, on that note, I must attest something: personal war had horrors the same as modern war. Of anything, it was worse in some respects. Read the recelections of soldiers who fought in Caesar's campaigns against the Gauls. Or, any war action from Medieval or earlier time.

Imagine this: fighting shoulder-to-shoulder in the pitch-black against an enemy you cannot see. If you kill a man, you prey it was not your friend but a foe instead. The only way you know where you are is the sound of clanging metal and the breath of your companion to your side. Utter terror. These were the conditions at Alesia when the fighting stretched into the night.

And, as for the Blackfeet, they did eliminate tribes. Those tribes became integrated into the Blackfeet heirarchy, and their history was - in the eyes of the native people - erased. Happened quite often. Trust me, I've spent many a month on the reservation reading about their history.

you couldnt be more wrong

So are you ready to die in one? Are you ready to kill in one? Are you ready to watch your family killed by a bomb that falls on your house, or by hunger from food supplies being disrupted, or by disease because the infrastructure for clean water and sanitation has been destroyed?

Or are you just ready for that to happen to other people, while you sit back, cheering it on?

So are you ready to die in one? Are you ready to kill in one? Are you ready to watch your family killed by a bomb that falls on your house, or by hunger from food supplies being disrupted, or by disease because the infrastructure for clean water and sanitation has been destroyed?

yes!!!!!

yes!!!!!

Why?

Why?
why not, its honourable

War has brought some great things. It's also one of the few forms of population control and natural selection still in effect. I do think there are better ways to accomplish all of these things, however.
Wars bring out great technological advancement because they inspire competition and a buttload of spending, but we don't need war for either of those things. If the government was more willing to use it's assets to push technology as far as it could go, and kept a better check on monopolies, I'm sure our technological pace would hasten.
The individual generally disreguards overpopulation, almost everyone wants to have kids. Plus, their selection of a mate is based on really crappy things a good deal of the time. Though, now that I think about it, warfare is pretty crap for natural selection. Sending off all the young, healthy people to die while the rest are left to reproduce doesn't sound like such a good idea.
I doubt we'll be losing warfare any time soon though, as people seem to feel it's just easier than managing their society properly a lot of the time. Still, I would like to think that warfare will move more and more towards economic warfare in the not-so-distant future. By no means do I think war is really necessary, but I wouldn't go so far as to just lable it as "bad" and dismiss why it's there in the first place.

why not, its honourable

No, it isn't honorable. Killing is never honorable. It may be necessary, but it is not honorable.

What is "honorable" is battling injustice successfully and non-violently.

WAR is great, I just saw them a week and a half ago. Or at least Lonnie Jordan and and the new group he's fronting. Even Howard Scott and Lee Oskar aren't with the band anymore....


Oh that's not the topic ...?



Nevermind.

War has brought some great things. It's also one of the few forms of population control and natural selection still in effect. I do think there are better ways to accomplish all of these things, however.
Wars bring out great technological advancement because they inspire competition and a buttload of spending, but we don't need war for either of those things. If the government was more willing to use it's assets to push technology as far as it could go, and kept a better check on monopolies, I'm sure our technological pace would hasten.
The individual generally disreguards overpopulation, almost everyone wants to have kids. Plus, their selection of a mate is based on really crappy things a good deal of the time. Though, now that I think about it, warfare is pretty crap for natural selection. Sending off all the young, healthy people to die while the rest are left to reproduce doesn't sound like such a good idea.
I doubt we'll be losing warfare any time soon though, as people seem to feel it's just easier than managing their society properly a lot of the time. Still, I would like to think that warfare will move more and more towards economic warfare in the not-so-distant future. By no means do I think war is really necessary, but I wouldn't go so far as to just lable it as "bad" and dismiss why it's there in the first place.


Ooh, I'm probably going to be shouted off for saying this, but I think I want to add this into the fray as well.

While attening a Summer Session on international relations, a man from the State Department (who has become my political idol, thanks to his practical, moderate positions) stated the following fact: Nations that have a free-market economy and a democracy will not wage war with similar countries. Why? The cost of waging war far outweighs any advantages. Why? Trade. You sever trade ties with a fellow free-market state, and your economy will suffer erraneously. Especially since War between free-market countries is usually bad business for those said countries, war propogators will often have embargos or stout tariffs placed on them. Thus, Free-market, Democratic countries will not wage war with each other.

Now, here's another interesting talking point: what if all nations on earth were Free-Market, Democratic countries? Would war be abolished?

NOTE: I do not believe that all nations can be Free-market, Democratic countries successfully. Simply because a Free-Market requires developing countries to supply insecent consumerism.

OTHER NOTE: I'm sure spellin is attrocious throughout this piece, but I'm too tired to spell-check. >p

:rolleyes:
What???

Now, here's another interesting talking point: what if all nations on earth were Free-Market, Democratic countries? Would war be abolished?

No. As long as there are states, especially states dominated by ruling classes, there will be war.

It is true that powerful nations with close economic ties to one another will not attack each other, but the more powerless nations would be preyed on by the powerful ones, and competitors among the powerful would likely battle by proxy.

I voted for "War is a necessary evil".

I don't like war.
The effects of it, well, they suck. The amount of lives a war destroys can never be worth it. We would all be so much happier without it.

I don't like war.
The effects of it, well, they suck. The amount of lives a war destroys can never be worth it. We would all be so much happier without it.

"If you want peace, you must prepare for war." -George Washington.

War isn't the happiest thing for people, but to say the amount of lives a war destroys can never be worth it is a naive and unread opinion. Would you rather the Greeks have fallen before the Persians at Thermopylae? Or the Romans have stopped fighting after losing the most perfect military ambushes in history to Hannibal Barca? They knew the price of giving up, and it was worse than the incredible devastation Hannibal had already caused. You imagine losing nearly an entire generation of farm boys and then still fighting. According to your opinion, the Roman Republic was therefore a Republic run by lunacy.

Skip forward. Napoleon... Let's just let him run the show in Europe, because hey, dying is too high a price to pay for the independence from his imposed rule.

The siege of Leningrad? I suppose you'd rather they'd put their guns on the ground and let the Germans walk into the Soviet Union.

What about Iwo Jima? Guadalcanal? The people who bled and died there probably would feel disgruntled at your insistence that their sacrifices weren't worth it.

There are more examples, but I'm tired and about to call my girlfriend before bed.

Go read some history books, then come back and voice your opinion, because you're not speaking as one who is informed, just one who is voicing an opinion given to them.

I'm talking more 21st century. I can't argue on those earlier wars.. They've been and gone. They have brought us to where we are today. Of course, things were so much different back then. Nowadays, why should war be a part of life? I don't think it's worth having American soldiers dying by the day in Iraq.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Of course wars will be necessary, but imagine a world where they wouldn't be. Sure, it's an ignorant and utopian view, but you can't really argue that without war we would all be a lot happier.

This has nothing to do with lack of information. This is completly related to the present time and for me, war is not the way.

"If you want peace, you must prepare for war." -George Washington.
Talk about rewriting history...:rolleyes:

seeing as scientific progress has outstripped human development leaving us with a whole load of ethical dilemmas we don't know how to deal with and a whole load of environmental problems we never even considered i would reckon that the progress born of war is not quite the blessing it seems. maybe every cloud has a silver lining but this one's got lightning in it too.

<sings>

"War .. UH! .. .. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! .."

The most obvious instance of when war can be legitimised is to stage non-partisan humanitarian intervention when Human Rights are being grossly violated. The second instance would be in acts of self-defence from a direct military attack.
The first would be noble and justifiable. The second is often too little too late.

<sings>

"War .. UH! .. .. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! .."
Interesting song, but totally inappropriate.

I would much rather go to war than allow my Country to be devastated, my family killed or enslaved. War is good for keeping the barbarians from the gate, and make no mistake, there are still barbarians and they will take everything you have, including your life, if you allow it.

Is war worth it? Think about the advancements war has given us. Without war our word would be hundreds(possibly thousands) of years behinThe Govs say that.. but I do not agree.

<sings>

"War .. UH! .. .. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! .."

It took til page 5 to get to this quote? :p

Interesting song, but totally inappropriate.

Awww, come on, Eut! Where's your sense of humor? Ah, well, it's still early.

I would much rather go to war than allow my Country to be devastated, my family killed or enslaved. War is good for keeping the barbarians from the gate, and make no mistake, there are still barbarians and they will take everything you have, including your life, if you allow it.

I think everyone here would defend themselves and their families, and most would defend their nation. Perhaps a better question for the OP would be: under what circumstances is it acceptable to initiate international agression?

Damn, I think war is essential for human civilisation.... but I'm also a total smoke-head hippy.


I'm a very conflicted person.

-snip-
Just one thought: If there hadn't been any wars, none of that would have happened, right?

And I don't really think there's a great need for war nowadays, at least not for most (or rather, nearly all) nations. Just look at Sweden and Switzerland: 200 years without war, and neither, as far as I know, is run by barbarians. Unless you're a right-wing extremist and think that socialist-democrats are barbaric commies in disguise, that is.

I think war is a neccesary evil. Emphasis on both words. The cost is very high, and it should be a last resort, but sooner or later that last resort becomes neccesary.

"If you want peace, you must prepare for war." -George Washington.

War isn't the happiest thing for people, but to say the amount of lives a war destroys can never be worth it is a naive and unread opinion. Would you rather the Greeks have fallen before the Persians at Thermopylae? Or the Romans have stopped fighting after losing the most perfect military ambushes in history to Hannibal Barca? They knew the price of giving up, and it was worse than the incredible devastation Hannibal had already caused. You imagine losing nearly an entire generation of farm boys and then still fighting. According to your opinion, the Roman Republic was therefore a Republic run by lunacy.

Skip forward. Napoleon... Let's just let him run the show in Europe, because hey, dying is too high a price to pay for the independence from his imposed rule.

The siege of Leningrad? I suppose you'd rather they'd put their guns on the ground and let the Germans walk into the Soviet Union.

What about Iwo Jima? Guadalcanal? The people who bled and died there probably would feel disgruntled at your insistence that their sacrifices weren't worth it.

George Washington's quote doesn't necessarily approve of agression. It could easily be taken to mean that it's important to have a strong military as a deterrent. Like the ridiculous amount of nuclear weapons made in the cold war; the US and the USSR would have never really used the nukes because it would be mutually-assured destruction. The only possible scenario would be a situation simliar to the game Fallout's storyline, where China and the US fight and when the US troops approach Beijing the party leaders decide they would rather annihilate civilization than lose coventionally.

What if the Greeks at Thermopylae were defeated? The worst case scenario I can see is a notable difference in culture.

What if the Hannibal had conquered Rome? Our culture would have less (or no) Roman influence, but let's be honest, Rome's eventual defeat by foreign tribes didn't destroy Roman culture, Christianity did. Western culture has been far more influenced by the Roman Catholic church than by Rome's victory over Hannibal.

Also, the Romans were lunatics and any time I read or hear about Roman society it makes me sick. The patricians basically spent their days scheming to get to the top, indulging in hedonist pleasure (I don't think that would be bad if it weren't bought with slave labor), or waging wars against foreigners.

Skipping forward, Napolean himself said his military career would have far less effect than his civil laws. My understanding (I admit I'm not familiar with the history and development of laws and government bureaucracy) is that he was correct and western governments continue to be influenced by the Napoleanic Code. For more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleanic_Code

As for World War II, the two main justifications I can see are to stop German agression across Europe and to end the holocaust. For the first, Hitler has been quoted saying he would not have invaded the rest of Europe had Britain and France had declared war or attempted to stop him when he annexed Austria or western Czechoslovakia. For the second, stopping the holocaust could be called a posthumous justification. A few rumors had escaped Germany about concentration camps, but they were disregarded because similar rumors of German atrocities had come out of Belgium in World War I and proved to be either entirely false or occuring only in isolated incidences by individuals, not as policy of the German army. Concentration camps weren't really known or believed until the Soviets captured them and discovered the horrors inside.

In conclusion, "war isn't a happy thing for people" and I'm quite certain that I know of no situation historical or imagined which justifies it.

Yeah, we had advances due to the application of thought and creativity, resources that were pressed into service in military causes throughout history. So what?

Who's to say that there could have been no other driving force to apply ourselves to creative thought and innovation? If military bodies weren't so greedy they could afford to foot the bill for virtually all research, and yet so secretive that civilians get but a tiny trickle of what's really state-of-the-art, then perhaps we could see what we're really capable of.

War isn't so great. The tech they use, though, is really, really, really cool.

War is inevitable so to deem it unnecessary is utterly foolish and idealistic.

Wise aggression is very profitable. However, very few people tend to think before they act, point and case Iraq.

I do not propogate war but only think it wise as something to prepare for.

War is never worth it. It is always something to be avoided.
Even a defensive war is still wrong, it just happens to be neccesary.


as usual..you floor me!

if i kick in your door,rape your loved ones..your going to sit passively....and can i steal all your stuff if so?

i agree war is never worth the price...true..but war is always present and human nature...however unfortunate,yet you seem to imply,aside from this post,that war is evil,and i feel war is needed to stop evil.

i will agree it is to be avoided at almost all cost,but there is a fine line between apeasement and being a victim.

maybe we are not so far apart,but from other posts where you bad mouth american soldiers and activists protesting a soldiers funeral,you seem to be in favor of americans dying,but for others it is not ok?

that truly baffles me..as does your statement that all the families of slain soldiers should be shamed...and i asked..what about the 5 year old girl who lost her brother/dad...what does she need to be ashamed of?

sorry.:confused:

as usual..you floor me!

if i kick in your door,rape your loved ones..your going to sit passively....and can i steal all your stuff if so?

i agree war is never worth the price...true..but war is always present and human nature...however unfortunate,yet you seem to imply,aside from this post,that war is evil,and i feel war is needed to stop evil.

i will agree it is to be avoided at almost all cost,but there is a fine line between apeasement and being a victim.

maybe we are not so far apart,but from other posts where you bad mouth american soldiers and activists protesting a soldiers funeral,you seem to be in favor of americans dying,but for others it is not ok?

that truly baffles me..as does your statement that all the families of slain soldiers should be shamed...and i asked..what about the 5 year old girl who lost her brother/dad...what does she need to be ashamed of?

sorry.:confused:

The question is, why are you the one breaking into his house and raping his loved ones?

A key issue I believe is being ignored is why do we fight wars? And will wars, especially in a modern sense.

Also, please, deter from flaming those who protest wars. I am an active protester of the war in Iraq. However, there is a difference between protesting a war and protesting the soldiers. In fact, I've been trying to get everyone I can to donate money to buy our soldiers decent armor in Iraq.

Plus, if you read Undelia's quote, he said defensive wars are wrong, but necessary.

Hmmm...thinking a bit more, I'd like to establish something about protests/protestors, as well as have people pull apart/help me figure out a little question:

*Ahem*

If you wish to protest a war, make sure you focus on making our soldiers' feel welcomed and loved first. Make sure you include something to make their sacrifices necessary. I admit, it is a difficult entrapment of sorts. If you protest a war, you're deemed unpatriotic, unsuporting our troops, etc. I know, I know, you do support the troops, but there is another side too. I have several friends who were vets. from the first Gulf War. And they can tell you, that it is hard when you loose friends in combat and everyone at home tells you that the combat was not worth fighting. True, GW1 did not have the same dissent, but they still were exposed to protestors all the same.

So, to the bread n' butter of my rambling: I'd like both sides of the issue on war. Those who are in favor of it and those against it to come up with a solution/idea for creating ways in which both sides can be happy in expressing their beliefs. IE: A way to give protestors the ability to protest wars while maintaining that the soldier's sacrifices were not in vain, as well as pro-war individuals to disagree with protestors that does not put strain on the soldiers/cause of the soldiers. If you don't understand what I mean, look at our current situation. In a number of conservative discussion forums (I mean talking w/conservatives, not online stuff), my belief that we should supply better armor was greated with the a response similar to a Michael Jackson Daycare. I was called unpatriotic, stupid, a terrorist, as well as a few other explitives. When they calmed down and our discussion turned to more fruitful goals, they said that saying the government was not doing everything in its power to protect our soldiers ammounted to protesting the war.

So, since I'm just sort of writing this off the top of my head, let me re-itterate my question/point: is there a middle ground we can all agree on? Certain boarders here and there? Extreme pacifists and extreme warmongers alike need to get their heads out of the clouds, I'm just wondering how we should do it.

Discuss. >_>

PS: I appologize for any criminal spelling mistakes in the aformentioned piece. Spelling Demons have run amok today...

The best way would be to send the extremists - from both sides - to war. The warmongers would see some harsh reality, and the disrespectful peaceniks would find out what being hated for risking your life is like.

The best way would be to send the extremists - from both sides - to war. The warmongers would see some harsh reality, and the disrespectful peaceniks would find out what being hated for risking your life is like.

Okay...that's true...

But I was thinking one that, you know, keeps them alive...

Okay...that's true...

But I was thinking one that, you know, keeps them alive...

If they die, that solves the problem too.

Let's face it, war sucks. All that killing and destruction of the environment and the draining of our economy, but, it is a necessary evil. The American Revolution was necesarry in securing the rights and freedoms of our citizens. The War of 1812... what was that about? The American Civil War was a necessary step for civil rights and (ultimately) unifiying the nation. The Great War, once again, was was that about. WWII, perhaps the most necessary war ever fought. Think what could have happened if the Allies had lost? We certainly wouldn't be posting here, and if we were, we'd probably be talking about how great of guy B. Mussolini III is. And so on.

I hate war. But in many cases it is necessary and is for the greater good, and no matter what the cause (with the exception of unnecesarry invasion of another peaceful country), I will support my country, and our allies', troops.

It is pointless (though sometimes fun) to discuss whether previous wars should have happened; they did and lead us to where we are today. Whether we should currently, or in the future, engage in wars is alone worth addressing. Defensive wars are always justified regardless of the form they take; provided they are authentically defensive (no preemptive strikes). Wars of conquest and aggression are never justified. Nor are "police actions." "Human rights" have no basis in reality and are not worth us getting involved in another country's affairs about. We'd have alot less enemies if we stopped interfering with the governments of countries (we wouldn't have problems with the middle east for example); and thus wouldn't need as large a military. Revolution is a seperate issue and I believe it is usually justified. For the benefits of war, population control can be carried out by individual nations, like China is doing, so war is not necessary for this. There are means of competition other than warfare that can push society to higher levels of technology; and if money were diverted from the military (I am for having a strong military but the amount of money America puts into theirs/ours is unjustifiable from a defensive perspective) to fund research our technology likely advance at a rate similar to how it has been through war (though in different areas of advancement). And if it doesn't advance as quickly, I don't see that as a problem (progress is only important insofar as it serves a purpose, it cannot be seen as a cause unto itself).

the pretense that without war we would still be living in caves is a lot of pro-soverign hierarchy propiganda nonsense.

granted tecnology has spent the last century and a half or so making up for the whole mellinia it had lost do to the repression of scientific thought by religeous fanatacism, but if it weren't for war, and the cultural romantacization of aggressiveness, there wouldn't have been that fanatacism in the first place.

true tecnology would have evolved at a much slower pace then we've seen for the past centrury and a half, but at a much more natural, comfortable, and consistent one then the fits and starts of fanatacism imposed upon it.

and there was certainly no lack of warfare during that millenium of fanatacism either, so if it were warfare primarily that stimulated tecnological development we should have seen more, not less, in that time fraime, yet we do not.

and what is this advancement of which you speak anyway? how much of it has made us any happier, safer, more comfortable, or more secure?

refrigeration, narrow gauge railways and the internet, are amost the only unallayed blessings i can think of. and the contributions of war to any of these is questionable at best.

likewise solar cells, long recharge life storrage batteries, water wheels, electric motors and generators.

would we really be worse off without the use of combustion to generate energy? rather the contrary i should think.

no. if there had never been a roman empire, the age of steam might have started a thousand years sooner though possibly lasting 500 years longer, but in either event we'd far more likely to be out among the stars, and behaiving ourselves there, instead of where we are now. far from advancing us, war has retarded our development in the areas of cultural wisedom and enlightenment.

every world needs farmers, or at least hunters and gatherers. every world needs artists and dreamers (it is the drive to express ourselves creatively that has propelled us to inovate, not the 'excitement' of beating each other over the head). and when the dreamers and farmers have brought us to where there's a place for them, engineers, scientists and tecnitions.

no world NEEDS warriors or bussiness persons

=^^=
.../\...

The advances war has brought us are miniscule compared to the advances freedom would have brought us.

It is hard for me to justify any war that is not acted upon in defense of one's own society or another free society.

The best way would be to send the extremists - from both sides - to war. The warmongers would see some harsh reality, and the disrespectful peaceniks would find out what being hated for risking your life is like.


yes, yes yes YES YES OMG OMG YES!!!!!!!!
:gundge:

War isn't a choice it is a state of being.

As long as any oppose your values for what is right then you are forced to defend your state. In all truth a state of 100% sovereign and divine there should be no reason for a state of war, but in all this confusion we see contradiction to our absolute ideals. Or do we.

It is the duty of the divine to provide for all of humanity, but part of that provision is not forcing your opinion on others. The confict occurs when we start to divide possessions.

Ultimately we own everything, so war and defence become nothing more than a confusion between policy of interaction with one another. Our interactions end up in proximalty of exchange, we simply gravitate to the ideal of our capacities.

Why is it that our ideal of capability is to take the lives of others?

Of all the evil things that seem expressed in memory murder is the least evil of all evils to be done, simply because it stops life rather than continues thought of evil upon it. It does not make it right, why though is there difference of opinion and fragmentation. It is paradoxial to go to that level of logic but that is the point of unity, in logos.

There are no lines but there are political circles and weight of agreement in spheres of influenes, true lines get drawn but in an interactive world our areas of proximalty get crossed?

To say either we are scientific robots or embracers of culture what is the way? There are universal truths but it seems so few gravitate towards a world of peace and knowing and consensus. There is expressions of personal possession, secrecy, and worldly authority. We are only at peace as equals, and in understanding of the universal values of interchange. That is to not come into contact with someone without their permission, nor to entrap individuals, the issue is though that we all gravitate to our greatest ideal, in a material world how can we acheive this ideal? So is our ideal to find spiritual or mental ideal beyond the material... the thing is though that we seem to keep ourselves alive in the material world...? Thus the concept of leisure is in part making capable to freedom in the material to be free in our spiritual and mental pursuits without conflict in the material world.

We should seek peace, why do we become confused into a state of war? Do we? It seems to be from the news, or when a law made by someone places their jurisdiction over you.. they are the ones declaring war.. but why?

It is not us that makes war it is their proclaimed jurisdiction which destroys peace, in mind, if we are not given peace of mind is this our own confusion or should anyone that infringes our equality and sovereingty be killed outright?

War isn't sought but why allow the continuance of falicy in the world? How can we have peace with lies.

I vote other.