NationStates Jolt Archive

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.

Nope.

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.
I think that your use of English while referring to your English teacher is highly immoral.
*scourges self*

Yes, war is immoral because killing is killing.

What kind of war? What are the circumstances?

War is moral if it is a necessary and proportionate defense of innocent life, and not otherwise.

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.
Not if you do it right and for the right reasons.

The side which attacks first is acting immorally, the side which responds has a moral right to do so. However, the nature of the response can render them too an immoral actor. This is merely the big picture anyway. At the finest level of detail, you will find people acting with kindness or malice on all sides. Sometimes the same individual will act with kindness and malice. Then there is that breed of individual who finds himself at war because that is where he feels he belongs, irrespective of cause, not caring what he fights for, so long as he fights.

People are complicated.

I think that your use of English while referring to your English teacher is highly immoral.
*scourges self*

Yes, war is immoral because killing is killing.

Unless of course the war prevents deaths.

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.
Is making my eyes bleed immoral? If so, you're a complete git.

People are complicated.

People are strange, as the Doors said.

sometimes it takes war to keep the peace...

sometimes it takes war to keep the peace...

If you look back at history, that really doesn't work. Because war always comes back, it is like Herpes.

If you look back at history, that really doesn't work. Because war always comes back, it is like Herpes.

war always comes back because peace is always threatened...

war always comes back because peace is always threatened...
Yes... by war. Circular logic anyone?

war always comes back because peace is always threatened...

Ok, but I think my Herpes comparison was more accurate.

Liasia']Yes... by war. Circular logic anyone?

Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum - "Who desires peace should prepare for war." Vegetius De Rei Militari

Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum - "Who desires peace should prepare for war." Vegetius De Rei Militari

The motto I live by in Hearts of Iron 2 and RTW.

I agree, all nations should be prepared to go to war. Just got to make sure the cause is just.

Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum - "Who desires peace should prepare for war." Vegetius De Rei Militari
Saying it in Latin doesn't make it true. Galen was Roman, but most of hsi ideas were still fucked.

If the war conforms to Just War Theory, then it is moral. Otherwise, it is amoral at best and immoral at worst.

Liasia']Saying it in Latin doesn't make it true. Galen was Roman, but most of hsi ideas were still fucked.

Except this one in particular would have done so much for the Western world.

Imagine if the US was ready for Pearl Harbor?

If the French, British, and Russians were ready to fight the Germans?

They weren't and the world suffered for it. The only nation prepared for war was Germany.

War! Hurr! What is it good for? Distracting attention away from embarrassing domestic problems and shoring up the support of the Government!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Except this one in particular would have done so much for the Western world.

Imagine if the US was ready for Pearl Harbor?

If the French, British, and Russians were ready to fight the Germans?

They weren't and the world suffered for it. The only nation prepared for war was Germany.

As they were in WW1? Yes, because that worked out well:rolleyes:

The US was ready when pearl harbour came along, they were just waiting till they had an excuse.

Yes, prepare for war, not actually engage in it.

War is morally justifiable, indeed it is a moral duty, in certain very limited cases. Viz all the hoary old chestnuts of protecting the weak from the strong, &c.
No war that I am aware of has been fought purely on these moral grounds.
So in theory, no, in practice it's messy.
Some wars are better to fight than not to fight, even if they aren't entirely moral even so, but that's lesser of two evils and doesn't really answer the question.

Annnnd....no nation was truly ready for World War One. They were all prepared for an open war that would be over by Christmas. Not one nation in July 1914 was expecting the way it panned out, and not one nation was prepared for it.

My opinion:

War can equal moral or immoral, depending omn the circumstances.

Example One:

Boolozia attacks Carazoop for no reason at all.

Immoral: Boolozia

Example Two:

Boolozia is practicing genocide against all non-Scientologists. Carazoop attacks after a couple warnings, which were ignored.

Immoral: Boolozia

Of course, since morals are subjective, none of it really matters.

Liasia']As they were in WW1? Yes, because that worked out well:rolleyes:

Except they weren't.

The US was ready when pearl harbour came along, they were just waiting till they had an excuse.

Which explains why we waited nearly a year for our factories to go into production before we actually became fully committed (ie: Operation: TORCH). If we had been ready, Operation TORCH would have occured in Janurary or February of 1942, not November. If we had been ready, there would have been a lot more Japanese planes rusting away at the bottom of the Pacific by sunset on 7 Decemer 1941.

Morals aren't subjective. Find me a sane human who thinks murder is OK?
People kill because they justify to themselves, for one reason or another, that what THEY are doing isn't murder. They don't stop thinking murder is wrong.

Morals aren't subjective. Find me a sane human who thinks murder is OK?
People kill because they justify to themselves, for one reason or another, that what THEY are doing isn't murder. They don't stop thinking murder is wrong.

Define murder.

Unjustified killing. Everyone agrees on that, it's the justifications they get difficult about. :p

Morals aren't subjective. Find me a sane human who thinks murder is OK?
People kill because they justify to themselves, for one reason or another, that what THEY are doing isn't murder. They don't stop thinking murder is wrong.

Hitler defined the murder of Jews as OK. And while he was pure evil (at least to me) I'm afraid he was sane.

Hitler defined the murder of Jews as OK. And while he was pure evil (at least to me) I'm afraid he was sane.

Maybe in his early days, but I would say he went somewhat insane during World War Two.

Meh, morality doesn't enter into it. War is one of the few forms of population control left for humans as a species. As medical science advances and increases the life expectancy of people throughout the globe (well, some parts of it), people will inevitably live longer. When the effects of this are added to the effects of increasingly efficient agricultural practices leading to increased food output, the human population will expand to unsustainable levels. In fact, it's already way past what could be considered a sustainable level with regards to the resources of this planet. So war has a role to play. Albeit, it needs to be on a much larger scale to have a noticeable effect on population levels.

(how's that for a controversial viewpoint)

Unjustified killing. Everyone agrees on that, it's the justifications they get difficult about. :p

Then what makes it justified?

When it prevents the loss of another life? If so, does this have to be an immediate threat (ie: killing a man who has gone postal) or long term (ie: killing a serial killer (or a career criminal) who would never be sent to jail by any court, due to a lack of evidence)?

Morals aren't subjective. Find me a sane human who thinks murder is OK?
People kill because they justify to themselves, for one reason or another, that what THEY are doing isn't murder. They don't stop thinking murder is wrong.

Because "murder" is, almost by definition, immoral killing.

The real question is, "what is murder"? That is indeed subjective.

1) I'm not sure I would consider Hitler as sane. Megalomaniac does still count as a mental disorder doesn't it?
2) He justified it to himself. The rest of the world judged that his justification was utterly unsound, but within his own mind, it was not murder, and murder was still wrong.

Look, I know my argument makes very little difference to outward appearances, I just firmly believe that all humans share a few moral tenets. The problem is that these are not defined to the last detail, but very general, so in the interpretation you get such disagreement that some think morals are relative.

There is nothing more immoral than war.Not only the kill but the mental ascepts as well. those who start them should be punished(ie, Bush)

There is nothing more immoral than war.Not only the kill but the mental ascepts as well. those who start them should be punished(ie, Bush)

Let's see.

Are you saying we should not have stopped Nazi Germany? And if you really believe that... you're going to really hate my nation if you ever RP.

What if someone (ignoring your specific example) were oppressing their own people, in effect conducting a war against the land they ruled. Would you then be justified in fighting them to prevent this?

What if someone (ignoring your specific example) were oppressing their own people, in effect conducting a war against the land they ruled. Would you then be justified in fighting them to prevent this?

Depends on whether or not you sell your people on it. Odds are that there won't be a lot of public support for it, though, unless you had a well-done propaganda campaign.

Liasia']The US was ready when pearl harbour came along, they were just waiting till they had an excuse.


"And remember the name of that good Reuben James"? No? Apparently not.

What if someone (ignoring your specific example) were oppressing their own people, in effect conducting a war against the land they ruled. Would you then be justified in fighting them to prevent this?

If they opress, yes, a war is justified in my opinion.

If they opress, yes, a war is justified in my opinion.

So is the war in Iraq a just war?

Iraq is messy. Most real life situations are.

Intervention was justified, to my mind, on humanitarian grounds. The same would be true of Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Darfur, as it was true of Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Kosovo.

The fact that it was instead sold as a war on WMD, that the occupation has been almost as ineffective as the initial conquest was effective....means that the actual course of events doesn't show a justified war. There was potential for a moral invasion of Iraq.

I think that your use of English while referring to your English teacher is highly immoral.
*scourges self*

Yes, war is immoral because killing is killing.

what if we used paintball guns instead. :p

So is the war in Iraq a just war?

No... not really. Saddam wasn't all THAT bad. Now, sure, if he was much worse, I'd say go for it, but there were bigger fish to fry.

And Jerusalas, I think enough of the people of a nation would support intervention of that type. Look at, as in my post above, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. That was done with popular approval.

And Jerusalas, I think enough of the people of a nation would support intervention of that type. Look at, as in my post above, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. That was done with popular approval.

When did we go into Sierra Leone?

No... not really. Saddam wasn't all THAT bad. Now, sure, if he was much worse, I'd say go for it, but there were bigger fish to fry.

So it's OK to oppress, murder, and gas your own people, so long as you aren't doing it too often?

Last few years. Dunno if the US was involved, but the UK sent troops, I think under UN auspices.

Last few years. Dunno if the US was involved, but the UK sent troops, I think under UN auspices.

You mean to tell me that the UN has actually done its job? Not NATO or the US?

NATO certainly weren't running it, because Afghanistan is the first time NATO has deployed outside it's original area of operations, and that is since we went into Sierra Leone.
As I said, I'm not sure the US was even involved.

Ok, hard facts at last:
17,000 foreign troops forced an end to a decade-long civil war.
This was the UN, though the West African organisation Ecomog, led by Nigerians, had previously been involved.
Britain was the major conributor (as far as I can tell) of troops, possibly as the former colonial power there.
They withdrew in 2002, after the best part of two years, having disarmed the rebels, trained the Sierra Leonean army, and observed successful multi-party elections.

So it's OK to oppress, murder, and gas your own people, so long as you aren't doing it too often?

He did that?

Invasion Supported.

war is immoral...murder is immoral.....self defense is acceptable....defence of innocents in another country could be considered self defence of fellow humans so then war could be considered moral and just

WW1-immoral
WW2-moral
Iraq-could have been moral but it appears it was done for immoral reasons

Last few years. Dunno if the US was involved, but the UK sent troops, I think under UN auspices.

2000. Operation Palliser, IIRC.


NOTE: checking this on the net I have just discovered that the 'West Side Boys' were actually called the 'West Side Niggaz', but apparently this was deemed inappropriate for UK media. Bizarre.

Oppress?
Well, the Kurds; the Marsh Arabs. Those are certainly two groups he oppressed. Hell, he drained the marshes to try and destroy the Marsh Arabs as a distinct culture.
Murder; well, that's what he's currently on trial for, but I think we can accept it was fairly frequently used as a tool of the regime.
And gas, the Kurds again. Some years ago, but chemical munitions were used on Kurdish towns in northern Iraq.

He did that?

Invasion Supported.

Er... *ahem. Duh. (?)

You didn't know this?

Oppress?
Well, the Kurds; the Marsh Arabs. Those are certainly two groups he oppressed. Hell, he drained the marshes to try and destroy the Marsh Arabs as a distinct culture.
Murder; well, that's what he's currently on trial for, but I think we can accept it was fairly frequently used as a tool of the regime.
And gas, the Kurds again. Some years ago, but chemical munitions were used on Kurdish towns in northern Iraq.

Justification after the fact, though, isn't it, seeing as how the Gulf War was launched on the basis of an illegal invasion, rather than internal oppression.

West Side Boys ... West Side Niggaz
That's just about wierd enough to be true.

Gulf War I was to liberate Kuwait, though overthrowing Saddam would have been justified.
Gulf War II had all the same justifications as I except Kuwait...and they went for WMD. Which quite clearly were not there, except some remnants that were left over from the '80's, and had survived sanctions.

Justification after the fact, though, isn't it, seeing as how the Gulf War was launched on the basis of an illegal invasion, rather than internal oppression.

yup......It was well known Saddam was a brutal dic......but none of that mattered as long he sold Iraq's oil and was no threat to dominate the middle eastern oil supplies but that changed.... and then his previously ignored record of abuse became a justification for invasion.....

As far as I know no nation has ever run a moral foreign policy, but it would be nice to see it actually tried.
Apart from arms sales to dodgy countries, and before the Iraq War, this (UK) government was doing quite well. They just had to go and throw it all away.

Gulf War I was to liberate Kuwait, though overthrowing Saddam would have been justified.

Although it might possibly have been ethically justified, it wasn't justified on the basis of the UN resolutions.

So is the consensus that "Dubya" Bush is immoral because he sold us a pack of lies to wage a moral war? Or is the war itself immoral because it was sold on a pack of lies?

Ethical justification is more important than UN justification, though UN justification is useful.
After all, to get something through the Security Council you need to persuade most of the members to approve it, and all of the Permanent Members to not veto it.
That does not give you the moral high ground. It means that a small collection of nations, including China and Russia, noted for their humanitarian records, were persuaded it wasn't against their interests, and a slightly larger collection were bribeable.

Ethical justification is more important than UN justification, though UN justification is useful.
After all, to get something through the Security Council you need to persuade most of the members to approve it, and all of the Permanent Members to not veto it.
That does not give you the moral high ground. It means that a small collection of nations, including China and Russia, noted for their humanitarian records, were persuaded it wasn't against their interests, and a slightly larger collection were bribeable.

I believe the USA has it's share of vetos over the years not just China and Russia......veto power tends to make the UN disfunctional at times

The US has been known to veto stuff, yes. So have all the Permanent Members. One reason why I think the current structure should change - with a wider permanent membership, more representative of the modern world, not that of 1945, and no more veto power.

The US has been known to veto stuff, yes. So have all the Permanent Members. One reason why I think the current structure should change - with a wider permanent membership, more representative of the modern world, not that of 1945, and no more veto power.

And keeping nations like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, North Korea, and China off of the Human Rights council would be a good thing, too.

personally I would prefer it if there was a new UN where only democracys were allowed membership......it might have a small membership...

personally I would prefer it if there was a new UN where only democracys were allowed membership......it might have a small membership...

Well, democracy isn't the only good government.

Quite possibly, though the Security Council is the crucial one.
It is also noticeable, when discussing Israel-Palestine; it is often mentioned that Israel has broken more UN Resolutions than Saddam's Iraq. It is much less often mentioned that the sheer number of Muslim nations in the General Assembly, that enjoy Israel-bashing, makes the passage of anti-Israel Resolutions almost a foregone conclusion.

Other governments are ok if the people of the country are happy with them. Which makes the existence of a good government dependent, in some sense, on the existence of democracy.
If you see what I mean.

Other governments are ok if the people of the country are happy with them. Which makes the existence of a good government dependent, in some sense, on the existence of democracy.
If you see what I mean.

I'd say limited democracy is best.

Well, democracy isn't the only good government.

You're thinking too NSly. In the real world, can you name any non-democracies which don't have a vast record of human rights abuses, or some other bad stuff attached to them?

You're thinking too NSly. In the real world, can you name any non-democracies which don't have a vast record of human rights abuses, or some other bad stuff attached to them?

Signapore?

Well, best is very hard to define, let alone achieve. Just by the by, I agree with you, depending on what you call limited.
But I think that some form of recognition of the wishes of the people is essential to good government, even if it doesn't look like democracy.
To quote (allegedly) an African chief talking to a British Minister
"In my tribe people have a say but no vote. In yours they have a vote but no say."
Not sure I agree with his assessment, but I'm an incurable optimist. The vote is not as important as the say.

Quite possibly, though the Security Council is the crucial one.
It is also noticeable, when discussing Israel-Palestine; it is often mentioned that Israel has broken more UN Resolutions than Saddam's Iraq. It is much less often mentioned that the sheer number of Muslim nations in the General Assembly, that enjoy Israel-bashing, makes the passage of anti-Israel Resolutions almost a foregone conclusion.

I wouldn't let Israel in the UN because it is guilty of many abuses.....I also wouldn't let many muslim nations in either...... but then many countries are guilty of illegal actions, USA, Britian, France, China.......

Signapore?

"You are the worst pirate, I have ever met!"
"You clearly have never been to Singapore... you aren't a eunuch, are you?"

In the real world, can you name any non-democracies which don't have a vast record of human rights abuses, or some other bad stuff attached to them?

In the real world, can you name any countries which don't have a vast record of human rights abuses, or some other bad stuff attached to them?

War is sometimes necessary but always evil. Just sometimes it happens to be the lesser of two evils.

Quite possibly, though the Security Council is the crucial one.
It is also noticeable, when discussing Israel-Palestine; it is often mentioned that Israel has broken more UN Resolutions than Saddam's Iraq. It is much less often mentioned that the sheer number of Muslim nations in the General Assembly, that enjoy Israel-bashing, makes the passage of anti-Israel Resolutions almost a foregone conclusion.

Since the point is usually made in regard to (binding) Security Council resolutions, not (non-binding) General Assembly resolutions, the number of "Muslim nations" in the General Assembly is irrelevant.

Signapore?

*trout-slap* Quiet, you. :mad:
Seriously though, Singapore does have some problems. There's quite a lot of controversy over there about the non-freedom of the press and such like, but it's overshadowed by the fact that they have a high standard of living and everything seems to be all peachy. Singapore is a nice place though.

All right, all right, perhaps Singapore. It's not exactly a complete dictatorship though. Any others?

Free Sex And Beer, there are no countries without stains on their record that, strictly speaking, should bar them from any global arbiter. Short of friendly, highly capable aliens, we have to accept that, and deal with the worst offenders (hint, not Israel, and not the United States either).

Soheran, fair point if you're right. As I have come across the argument, it either specifies resolutions by the General Assembly, or doesn't specify. I don't know the actual figures. And I haven't been seriously involved in arguments about Israel for quite a while. So I'm prepared to accept my ignorance on that one.

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.

WWII (Allies)

Revolutionary War

WWI (Later on)

Civil War (Union)

WWI at any stage was nothing to do with morality and everything to do with national pride.
The American War of Independence (Revolutionary War) had very little to do with morality, and more to do with disgruntled colonists paying for the debts incurred to pay for soldiers to save them from the French.
The World War II allies, you may recall, included a dictator with a more (in sheer number) horrific record than Hitler.
And the American Civil War was about State's rights, specifically to withdraw from the Union unilaterally. Slavery only became the issue after the Gettysburg Address, really.

WWI at any stage was nothing to do with morality and everything to do with national pride.
The American War of Independence (Revolutionary War) had very little to do with morality, and more to do with disgruntled colonists paying for the debts incurred to pay for soldiers to save them from the French.
The World War II allies, you may recall, included a dictator with a more (in sheer number) horrific record than Hitler.
And the American Civil War was about State's rights, specifically to withdraw from the Union unilaterally. Slavery only became the issue after the Gettysburg Address, really.

As I recall, the man who was the Prime Minister of Great Britain right before the Revolution said that the colonists were being moral in resisting the British. And that if the British went to war with the colonies, they would be going to war with everything that made Great Britain great.

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.

Not if it's to stop something that is highly immoral in the first place. Such as genocide, and sadly there are plenty of cases of it throughout history

That's one view. Inept and provocative moves by Britain certainly helped trigger the Revolution. But in truth, the colonial administration was not exactly oppressive; the colonists were almost certainly freer, and certainly less heavily taxed, than their English brethren; so peaceful action would have been more moral; as in applying political pressure. Not mounting a full scale revolutionary war.

That's one view. Inept and provocative moves by Britain certainly helped trigger the Revolution. But in truth, the colonial administration was not exactly oppressive; the colonists were almost certainly freer, and certainly less heavily taxed, than their English brethren; so peaceful action would have been more moral; as in applying political pressure. Not mounting a full scale revolutionary war.

Except the war was an accident. Concord and Lexington.

So the question you need to ask is why the colonists were building up stocks of arms and supplies, and why they resisted with armed force.

Very often war is immoral. But there will always be people who have no respect for human rights or dignity and will abuse it to get power. We just have to make sure that we aren't those people, or don't put them in power.

So the question you need to ask is why the colonists were building up stocks of arms and supplies, and why they resisted with armed force.
I can just imagine the sight at Lexington =P
"Hey, the King's soldiers are firing upon us! What should we do?"
"I have an idea!"
"Hey, you! Chaps, would you please cease firing up--- AGGH!"
"Hm. What was his plan, I wonder? He seemed to be saying something, but I couldn't hear it over the musket fire."

I was thinking the more important one would be why members of a region under no immediate threat were stockpiling arms, and why when they were rumbled they gathered to defend those arms. Not why with those two things in place they actually fought.

I was thinking the more important one would be why members of a region under no immediate threat were stockpiling arms, and why when they were rumbled they gathered to defend those arms. Not why with those two things in place they actually fought.

My guess would be that they felt like arming just in case. Then they lined up to stop the red-coats, figuring that they have some sort of right to keep their arms and then... yeah. Miscommunication.

Hmmm...see what trouble the right to bear arms gets you into :P

My guess would be that they felt like arming just in case. Then they lined up to stop the red-coats, figuring that they have some sort of right to keep their arms and then... yeah. Miscommunication.

Actually, it was a bit more complicated then that. Under British law, each colony was expected to be able to field a militia composed of what settlers there were with weapons and able bodies, as well as native auxilleries or mercenary bands, a custom that went back clear to Roman times originally.

But when the redcoats started taking guns, they were violating British law in doing so. It's the same old question philosophers always hate: when the people supposedly enforcing the law are breaking it, what do you do?

There was a lot of antagonism torwards the colonists on the part of the British government as well. The French Indian War, not started by the colonists, but which they'd paid a heavy price in their own lives largely without British assistance, then Parliament and the King literally turn around and tell them their to foot the majority of the bill while they're trying to re-build at the same time.

Well, things get worse. More and more bills are being paid by the colonists, more and more troops are being sent over to the colonies, and their demanding people's homes to be quartered in. You raise an issue about it, you risk getting shot. You peaceably protest, as did happen, you get shot at.

They're already shooting at you, and now they're sending troops out to sieze your guns. You aren't even being legally allowed to complain about it, like you have been able to in the past.

In essence, you have gone from being a British citizen to being treated like those French settlers you fought as recently as 10 years earlier were.

It's a hard to swallow notion at times, but had the British government not reversed it's policy on how it was treating some of it's own citizens, there's no telling what could've happened. We could've ended up leaving the British Empire the way Canada and Australia did, by being granted independence then joining the Commonwealth. We could've stayed Brits, even.

All it took to change the course of history was a handful of men who didn't pay attention to their own country's history, and a bunch of colonists who noticed they weren't being treated like citizens anymore.

Funny how the world works, isn't it?

The side which attacks first is acting immorally, the side which responds has a moral right to do so. However, the nature of the response can render them too an immoral actor. This is merely the big picture anyway. At the finest level of detail, you will find people acting with kindness or malice on all sides. Sometimes the same individual will act with kindness and malice. Then there is that breed of individual who finds himself at war because that is where he feels he belongs, irrespective of cause, not caring what he fights for, so long as he fights.

People are complicated.

I somewhat agree. The notion of self defence, or self preservation, however has been abused in the past immorally - Bush's defense of the iraq war as justified to 'protect' the US from future potential threats. The finest level of details is important to recognise, as this is where ultimately the moral decisions are subsequently made - shall I shoot? or not? shall I burn this village? or not? Nuclear weapons, and other such long range missiles are immoral as they deny this moral choice and kill all regardless of innocence.

War IS immoral, as morality dictates that we should strive for a non-violent existance resulting in peace. However one must come to the assistance of people who are threatened with extermination (jews etc WWII, Muslims in Kosovo, Tutsis in Rwanda (and hutus ), many many village tribes in Papua New Guinea during the 80s/90s, ...the list goes on). This assistance...this 'war'...need not be violent, it just has to be effective. To think that war is the only solution is to dive one's intelligence to the level of the caveman. War is endless, it just creates a 'lull' in violence till the next war and the next 'cause'. If we put the same amount of resources into international cooperation, into science research, as we do into killing each other, we'd live in a far more moral world.

On a lighter tone, computer games with war themes are great (medal of honour, call of duty etc) hahaha. This is cool too - http://www.flashportal.com/games/endless_war_2.html

Do u think war is immoral? Our english teacher posed us ths question and our class was divided over the issue becuz i cudn't c how war was not immoral.

It could be and it need not be and it maybe a moral one too. Depends on the cause, the means and the ends.

For ex, the Indian intervention in Bangladesh in 1971, sparked a war between India and Pakistan, but it stopped the Bangladeshi genocide. I would think that it would have been immoral to not go to war for that.

Aaron see my post above.
"inept and provocative moves."
British citizens in the British Isles also had to deal with billeting, since there were no barracks at that time. They also had to pay for a war they hadn't started, and which, if asked, they probably wouldn't have wanted. They had a higher tax burden to pay for it.
The colonists had been aided in the 7 Years War by troops sent from Britain, and paid for by Britain, and in fairness they were refusing to pay for their own defence.
The fact that the way it was gone about was inept does not put the British government in the wrong, or make it moral to rebel. And at the time, 1/3 of the colonists agreed with that. Another third didn't massively care either way. Only one third sympathised with the rebels. That is significantly less than sympathise with the insurgents in Iraq today.

Aaron see my post above.
"inept and provocative moves."
British citizens in the British Isles also had to deal with billeting, since there were no barracks at that time. They also had to pay for a war they hadn't started, and which, if asked, they probably wouldn't have wanted. They had a higher tax burden to pay for it.
The colonists had been aided in the 7 Years War by troops sent from Britain, and paid for by Britain, and in fairness they were refusing to pay for their own defence.
The fact that the way it was gone about was inept does not put the British government in the wrong, or make it moral to rebel. And at the time, 1/3 of the colonists agreed with that. Another third didn't massively care either way. Only one third sympathised with the rebels. That is significantly less than sympathise with the insurgents in Iraq today.

That's incorrect, actually. Colonial militias did the bulk of the fighting during the French Indian War. For every British soldier actually over there, there were a hundred colonials. Actually do some research before you open your mouth, ok?

It was the colonies that got seriously messed up there, as well. The Brits broke british law, the colonists got upset about it, especially when they started taking guns and shooting people at random at the same time. If they had done this today, the UN would be threatening sanctions or to send troops. In essence, the colonies were being told "pay up, the king wants his money, not withstanding your the only guys paying that don't speak French."

Also, you really need to pay attention to current events. Just because the media likes to claim it does not make it true, otherwise, America would've embraced communism in hopes of not having a cold war, and other such ludicrous things the media has tried to tell people to think or do in the past.

Lets take this one by one.
I called it the Seven Years War. You called it the French Indian War. Does that matter? Yes. Because the Seven Years War was fought by Britain and France around the world. If you look purely at the war in the colonies, the colonies probably provided most of the troops, though your assertion that it is 100-1 is simply absurd.
Secondly, if you actually read my post that you conveniently quoted, you will see that I said the colonies were aided by British troops, not that it was solely British troops doing the fighting. The point that Britain was at that time fighting in France (amphibious raids), India, Canada, Germany, the East Indies, the West Indies, and the American colonies, means it is only to be expected that in those colonies a lot of the fighting was done by the colonials.
To your second point I admit that my knowledge of internal affairs of the American colonies in the 1760-1770's is somewhat shaky; but I think you're guilty of exaggerating just a little. I'll check up on it.
And as to current events; polls of Iraqis by everyone from Fox News to al-Jazeera have shown that between 40 and 75% (lowest and highest figures I can immediately recall) of Iraqis sympathise with the insurgents. Bury your head down a sand-pit if you wish, but if al-Jazeera and Fox both say it's over one third, it's highly likely it IS over one third. Wake up and smell the coffee.

War is not immoral. It is a natural implement in the human race that has lasted ever since humans existed, and there's no stop to it.

The same thing about sex being immoral to some people, but it too is a natural implement in the human race that has lasted ever since humans existed.