NationStates Jolt Archive

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

This is an incredibly broad question. I'm basically anti-war, but I think most sane people are. I doubt there are many people who are pro "killing people just for the sake of killing people". I, and most others, support certain specific wars but not necessarily war in general.

In favour of war only if attacked by other nation.

In favour of intervention only if there is evidence a state is committing genocide or in the case of a collapsed state.

Fighting others is a natural human urge, so as long as their not hurting anyone we should let them give into it ;)

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

That question is too broad to answer by a simple yes or no.

So I voted both.

War is sometimes necessary to defend one's country, ideals, and/or way of life. Or to defend those who can't defend themselves.

But it is always terrible. Without a doubt, war is one of the most horrible things in the world, if not the single most terrible thing (I personally think that genocide is worse).

War, good god ya'll, what is it good for? Absolutely, Nothing!

Fighting others is a natural human urge, so as long as their not hurting anyone we should let them give into it ;)

Based on personal experience, fighting with assault rifles generally leads to people getting hurt.

It depends on the cause, but it is true that war makes jobs.

Based on personal experience, fighting with assault rifles generally leads to people getting hurt.

My choices are posting parody that doesn't actually make connected sense, or learning Automatic Control...

It depends on the cause, but it is true that war makes jobs.

Err.. How? War tends to wipe out a fair amount of people and buildings/land. The rebuilding process hardly creates jobs because it costs so much just for materials etc.

My choices are posting parody that doesn't actually make connected sense, or learning Automatic Control...

Parody is always a good bet.

War, good god ya'll, what is it good for? Absolutely, Nothing!

stole my fucking line bitch!:p

depends how you define war.
with bullets, tools, messages.
There are many ways to fight wars, sweat and blood is only the crudest one.

i just looked at the poll results
5:5
yet the percentages are 62.50% each.
now my mathematical knowledge isn't first rate but i think there's something wrong there.

War is shit. Occasionally necessary, but unpleasant none the less. And there's a few weirdos who like it a bit too much.
i just looked at the poll results
5:5
yet the percentages are 62.50% each.
now my mathematical knowledge isn't first rate but i think there's something wrong there.
The numbers on multi-choice polls are always fucked up.

Theoretically, there shouldn't be a need for war.

Practically, it is the only way to achieve some things.

We should all be against war, and fight anyone who doesn't agree!

I support war in only a few circumstances.

1. Genocide.
Non-Interventionist and Pacifist noobs will claim that war is never right/we must respect human life.

But i'd rather have say, 200,000 people killed off the bat and replace a dictator than let him/her drag out a long slow annihilation of an entire people that would likely be more than the deathtoll war would cause. Utilitarianism ftw.



2. If the country is going on a pwn spree...like the USA.

If the country is just flat out stuffed full of warmongering little bastards, kill as many as you can and enjoy it... before they get you first.


3. For the lulz.
The often overlooked 3rd reason.
See Poland.

Depends on the reasoning behind going to war.

All war is pants.

I support war in only a few circumstances.

1. Genocide.
Non-Interventionist and Pacifist noobs will claim that war is never right/we must respect human life.

But i'd rather have say, 200,000 people killed off the bat and replace a dictator than let him/her drag out a long slow annihilation of an entire people that would likely be more than the deathtoll war would cause. Utilitarianism ftw.



2. If the country is going on a pwn spree...like the USA.

If the country is just flat out stuffed full of warmongering little bastards, kill as many as you can and enjoy it... before they get you first.


3. For the lulz.
The often overlooked 3rd reason.
See Poland.

I would argue that the Falklands War was a better example of the third reason.

I feel an urge to post something like "war FTW" or "I'm for", or whatever. Just to differ :wink:

War is bad, and it kills people. But it is human nature to fight each other. Lesser apes such as chimpanzees war also.(Except ours do alot more damage) War also solves problems and disputes, the winner being the one who is stronger. It is survival of the fittest, and humans are not exepmt.

Voted yes,sometimes you can't reason with a nation or a people,and sometimes,you just have to stand jackbooted over the bloated dead bodies of thine enemy..

War, like shit, happens.

Lesser apes such as chimpanzees war also.(Except ours do alot more damage)

So do ants, who do about the same about of damage as us. Ants are more like us than a lot of people realise, and it's sometimes a little scary too.

Wars of aggression are pure evil. A war in national defense against an invading enemy is evil, but better than the alternative of being conquered.

*edit* A war of rebellion against tyranny is also better than the alternative. Still, war is a terrible choice and not to be entered lightly.

Those are two extreme views, so I had to vote for both, which may skew your numbers slightly.

I believe that war is needed because sometimes it can be used as a control, but it's one that is easily abused. On one hand, we need it because it's natural to fight, even if it's with fists or weapons instead of words. On the other hand, lives are lost and war is basically coercion to determine whose point of view will win out.

I'm neutral for this reason: We need it, but it's coercion. That is to say, it's like saying, "If you don't take our morals and our way of life, then we'll bomb you and hurt innocent people for your radical beliefs."

I'm not against every wars, but I'm against stupid wars. The world can't be in the right way without any war.

On one hand, we need it because it's natural to fight, even if it's with fists or weapons instead of words.

I'm confused as to why this is a reason. We need to do something because it's natural? Living in trees like so many other primates is natural. Hunting and gathering for food is natural. Dying of polio and the plague is natural.

I'm confused as to why this is a reason. We need to do something because it's natural? Living in trees like so many other primates is natural. Hunting and gathering for food is natural. Dying of polio and the plague is natural.

Why is it that those who are on one side of the spectrum or the other so quick to bring older ways of life into the picture?

Why do people fight after a few too many drinks or because someone oversteps their boundaries? It's because they did something that breaches their mutual agreements. This is human nature. Get too close to someone or in their face, be it sober or inebriated, odds are someone's going to fight.

Now, put this in a larger scope. The reasons war are fought are various. Borders, rebellion, and a desire to somehow change the world are just a few reasons. Why are borders so important? It's the identity behind a nation, country, or state. People rebel because they are not happy with the ways of the world and believe that fighting will bring change. Be it for freedom or to change a law, it's still there on a small level.

It's a nasty thing, but just as illness, hunting, and shelter were primative needs, some of the more primative behaviors are still needed.

On one hand, we need it because it's natural to fight, even if it's with fists or weapons instead of words.

Aggression is without question natural, at least to an extent, and so is violence. But mass organized slaughter? Of course it isn't. It tends to be a lose-lose for those involved, so it hardly has any evolutionary purpose, and it takes a massive psychological toll on participants that hardly suggests something we are naturally suited to do.

Not to mention the fact that it expends resources on things other than immediate survival.

War is only necessary when one is being attacked by a war-making entity.

That first war being always unnecessary, hence all war is ultimately unnecessary. And evil.

Propaganda death ensemble
Burial to be
Corpses rotting through the night
In blood laced misery
Scorched earth the policy
The reason for the siege
The pendulum it shaves the blade
The strafing air blood raid

Infiltration push reserves
Encircle the front lines
Supreme art of strategy
Playing on the minds
Bombard till submission
Take all to their graves
Indication of triumph
The number that are dead

Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

Be dead friend from above
When darkness falls
Descend into my sights
Your fallen walls
Spearhead break through the lines
Flanked all around
Soldiers of attriction
Forward their ground
Regime prophetic age
Old in its time
Flowing veins run on through
Deep in the Rhine
Center of the web
All battles scored
What is our war crimes
(Era forever more...war)

Propaganda war ensemble
Burial to be
Bones shining in the night
In blood laced misery
Campaign of elimination
Twisted psychology
When victory is to survive
And death is defeat

Sport the war, war support
The sport is war, total war
When the end is a slaughter
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill





SLAAAAAAAAAYER!!!!


Sorry.

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

I think this sums up my stance on war.

Sun is also a Warrior
Leslie Fish c1986

Two men walked on the beach in the sun.
One left footprints, the other left none.
One was a man who no man obeys;
The other a god from the ancient days.

"Look," said the man, "how my kind make war.
I summonned you here to ask what for."
"For wealth or land," the god replies,
"For life, or freedom, or some king's lies."

CHORUS:
"The sun is also a warrior.
Knowledge can also destroy.
Nor can the kindest will,
Preserve you from the kill.
Not all of wisdom brings joy."

"Four of those five," the first one said,
Are not enough to appease the dead.
To save my world all this strife must cease,
So now I bid you to conjure peace."

The god said "Yes. Though it grieves me sore,
For I was also a god of war,
And I remember what you forget,
Four of those five you may still regret."

CHORUS

He raised his voice and he raised his hand.
All strife stopped at the god's command.
No voice ventured an angry word,
No hand struck and no weapon stirred.

In time, the man called the old god back.
"Look," he cried, "what my people lack!
One lord rules over all the earth,
And we're all his slaves from the hour of birth."

CHORUS

"Look, he owns all wealth, and he owns all land,
We starve and die under his command.
He speaks the truth and he gives us peace,
But all that I hope for is our release."

The old god said, "This is what you willed.
For only thus is your wish fulfilled.
War's five sources I took away,
Yet I will give four of them back today."

CHORUS

He raised his hand and his voice once more,
And all the world overturned in war.
And when the last of those fires let fall,
There was no lord in the world at all.

"Go rebuild now," the old god said,
"Feed the living and bury the dead,
And remember this when you speak of war,
And think upon what is worth fighting for."

CHORUS

I hate peace as I hate hell.

Why is it that those who are on one side of the spectrum or the other so quick to bring older ways of life into the picture?
To make a point that less pleasant times could be called more natural, and if notural is somehow good, then it follows that we should return to those less pleasant times. Basically, reductio ad absurdum.

Why do people fight after a few too many drinks
Alcohol lowers one's inhibitions.
or because someone oversteps their boundaries? It's because they did something that breaches their mutual agreements. This is human nature. Get too close to someone or in their face, be it sober or inebriated, odds are someone's going to fight.
Therefore wars are necessary? Fights between a few people aren't analogous to war.

Now, put this in a larger scope. The reasons war are fought are various. Borders, rebellion, and a desire to somehow change the world are just a few reasons. Why are borders so important? It's the identity behind a nation, country, or state.
And determining who owns and can exploit natural resources.
People rebel because they are not happy with the ways of the world and believe that fighting will bring change. Be it for freedom or to change a law, it's still there on a small level.
And?

It's a nasty thing, but just as illness, hunting, and shelter were primative needs, some of the more primative behaviors are still needed.

Sometimes war is necessary, as I've already said. You've got to a point I can agree with, but how you got there seems ridiculous. You still haven't explained "War = natural, therefore War = Necessary".
I hate peace as I hate hell.
What? Drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues and thee.

If it weren't for war most games would suck...

..so it hardly has any evolutionary purpose, and it takes a massive psychological toll on participants that hardly suggests something we are naturally suited to do..

I am not sure that it is entirely without evolutionary 'purpose'. Men aggresively moving into new territory and raping the local women is an efficient way of spreading genetic material that has already proven itself as viable in combat.

This, of course, does not mitigate the psychological toll of which you speak.

My opinion on war doesn't matter, if I despise war in all of it's forms, or if I think a war every ten seconds is both fun and healthy, war will still occur. It's that simple.

we dont need war, repress your animalistic desires

Its OK when its not real though like in a game:)

"War is hell and it cannot be redefined"
-William Tecumseh Sherman

Sometimes I am, other times I'm not. There we go.

"Any soldier worth [their] salt is anti-war. But even then, there are still things worth fighting for." - Norman Schwarzkopf

This sums up my ideas about war.
I hope that the irony of attaining peace through war is not lost.

In some cases, a necessary evil.

In others, pointless bloodshed.

The difference is often clear.



It does have plus sides. Medical technological advances is the big one, some major advances in aircraft, cars, communications have all made as a result of fighting.

I disagree with war. It goes against what I believe in.

"War is hell and it cannot be redefined"
-William Tecumseh Sherman

Said just after he burned the food supply of a million people.

War is terrible, no matter how one looks at it.

My philosophy is that of Napoléon: Try as hard as possible to negotiate and prevent wars, but be prepared if they come anyway.

Said just after he burned the food supply of a million people.

Honest.

Most things done in war aren't particularly nice and friendly. Not saying it was right of him to do that, but few things in war can be called "right." I believe it is inherently wrong to kill another human being. I am still not a pacifist.

War is always tragic.

well justified war is one thing
and the iraq war was justified but now its old and we need to SLOWLY pull out
i say war should be a "game" o sorts two contries put up a set number of troups in an arena and they fight it out and wichever contry wins wins the war ;)

Could you have simplified the matter any more?

well justified war is one thing
and the iraq war was justified but now its old and we need to SLOWLY pull out
i say war should be a "game" o sorts two contries put up a set number of troups in an arena and they fight it out and wichever contry wins wins the war ;)

One country puts their troops in an arena, then ther other country bombs it and laughs at them.

War sucks.

(Although... Maybe third time's the charme?
Mmh... Nah...)

Considering most of our technological advances are due to war, I say it is a necessary evil. The day there is no more war (which, will never happen) is the day technology comes to a screeching halt... Many technologies that we take for granted were originally invented for war or in case of war (for instance, the internet).

That being said, senseless war is a bad thing and I am against the Iraq War... But as a military historian, tends show that war causes societies to advance.

Considering most of our technological advances are due to war, I say it is a necessary evil. The day there is no more war (which, will never happen) is the day technology comes to a screeching halt... Many technologies that we take for granted were originally invented for war or in case of war (for instance, the internet).

That being said, senseless war is a bad thing and I am against the Iraq War... But as a military historian, tends show that war causes societies to advance.

Flight? The automobile? The personal computer? Edison's numerous inventions? All have been used for war, and there is a tangential connection between computing technology of today and the codebreaking equipment of WW2 and the early computers, but the greatest advances were in the civilian market and most of the original inventions were adapted by the military after being invented in the free market.

I voted both

War is necessary and fine when enacted at the right times. I am also of the belief that if and when war is necessary it isn't treated as a game. That is to say you must use overwhelming force to destroy the enemy and the threat.

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

Neither, war is something that's neccessary because of the natural order of things. War is horrible so I wouldn't support it unless it was a just one however it is neccessary and sometimes in order to keep savage jackasses in line one must beat them down with barbarity since they are blind to diplomacy and civility.

My opinion on was is what Chalmers Johnson says.
Sample (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)

war is an expensive, in every way cost might be counted, distraction, from everything that gratifies anyone or any thing. and a damd annoying one too.

granted there are too damd many humans (of EVERY 'flavour' and variety), but; in the aftermath of war, human population tends to increase all the more and all the more rappidly.

lowering human fertility is the only thing that's going to solve that.
(other then maybe famine and disease brought on by global climate change)

War's great, as long as I'm not fighting.

I think I will adopt the point of view of Sun Tzu, on the emphasis that the best way to win a war is not to fight at all.

I think I will adopt the point of view of Sun Tzu, on the emphasis that the best way to win a war is not to fight at all.

my understanding is that sun tzu is taught at the air force accadamy.
(and almost certainly in officer training in all branches of the militarys of many countries. he DOES seem to have known what he was talking about.)
my guess is that a lot of wingnuts, the ones who went into the kind of politics we've had for the past few decades, must have skipped class.

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

War is terrible. It is also Inevitable. It may be Controllable, if limited, but in the end, it's like violence of any sort-humans are Apex Predators, they're GOING to fight.

Whats your opinion on war? I just wanted to know, are you pro war or anti-war?

Wow, that's not a broad question. That's like asking "What do you think about feeding people?"

Generally speaking, my first principle when it comes to violence: don't use it unless there's no other choice available, either due to all other choices failing utterly, or simply no time to use the others and you need to use the violence to prevent something much worse.

A few example cases to illustrate what I mean:

1. A country known for being rather dictatorial is seeking nuclear weaponry to become a regional power and to keep much more powerful nations from influencing it anywhere near as easily.

Here, with a situation where there is plenty of time available, I would most definitely pursue all manners of diplomacy. If the country has the potential of actually USING nuclear weaponry, or has a high potential of allowing its nuclear weaponry to fall into the hands of terrorists or other extremists, then I would eventually authorize military action against them should diplomacy fail and should they come to the brink of developing nuclear weaponry.

HOWEVER, should neither of those two conditions be the case, I probably would not authorize military action. (A rather unlikely case at best.)

2. A country is threatening war on its neighbors and promises to utilize WMDs of some nature(probably chemical) for some particular reason, such as attempts at ethnic cleansing, or to grab resources, or both. Said country is very close to declaring such war and refuses all diplomacy.

This would be an obvious case of probable immediate military action, because to not act would be to allow a serious genocidal war on our hands, and we must do whatever we can to prevent such things.

But this is a really rare case. Most of the time when war potentially beckons, the situation is much more like the first type, where it's something that one can work around diplomatically.

On the whole, cooperation is far more effective than warring against one another all the time, as Europe has discovered in the past sixty years or so. As such, I am generally anti-war, as stated, unless there is no other option available and you are attempting to prevent something much worse.

the question needs definition. Its pointless. Just being broadly "Pro" or "anit" is too much of a simple classification for the idea of self deffence, pro active defence, liberation, invasion (and others) but there is a very big difference between them. I support 1 and 3 (when desired by the countries people and no other option is avaliable) only. But does that make me pro or anit?

It depends on the cause, but it is true that war makes jobs.
And how many of those are fulfilling on a moral level?

It depends on the cause, but it is true that war makes jobs.

You make jobs whenever you pay people to do something. It is better to pay them to do something that actually benefits society.

How can anyone be pro-war? Seems a silly question.

My opinion on was is what Chalmers Johnson says.
Sample (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884)

Agreed. I've read Blowback, and will get to the others.

How can anyone be pro-war? Seems a silly question.

Lots of people are pro-war. They just don't admit it in public.

Agreed. I've read Blowback, and will get to the others.

I don't quite agree that what we have is military Keynesianism, although I suppose that's the popular term for it now. Keynesian economics stipulates countercyclical deficit spending to build infrastructure. What we have is a permanent military-industrial complex.

Has anyone seen "Why We Fight?"

Lots of people are pro-war. They just don't admit it in public.

I'll wager the majority of those people wouldn't be pro-war if they were called to fight in one. Just a hunch.

I'll wager the majority of those people wouldn't be pro-war if they were called to fight in one. Just a hunch.

Or had close family that might have to serve on the front.

But they are out there, and usually quite powerful. The sad reality is that a big war solves all sorts of problems for the PTB. Hence the frequency.

I don't quite agree that what we have is military Keynesianism, although I suppose that's the popular term for it now. Keynesian economics stipulates countercyclical deficit spending to build infrastructure. What we have is a permanent military-industrial complex.

Has anyone seen "Why We Fight?"

I have. Good documentary.

I'll wager the majority of those people wouldn't be pro-war if they were called to fight in one. Just a hunch.

Which is why I think a draft is a good thing, because a citizen army makes unpopular wars much more difficult to sustain.

How can anyone be pro-war? Seems a silly question.

I think the real question shouldn't be "Are you pro war" but "Would you use military force in certain situations, and why?"

Which is why I think a draft is a good thing, because a citizen army makes unpopular wars much more difficult to sustain.

Nope. The type of people with the kind of pull to start wars can easily get draft exemptions for others, or failing that all kinds of cushy postings.

Check out david rockerfeller's military career during WWII. Hardly saving private ryan.

Nope. The type of people with the kind of pull to start wars can easily get draft exemptions for others, or failing that all kinds of cushy postings.

Check out david rockerfeller's military career during WWII. Hardly saving private ryan.

But the reason there was so much domestic resistance to the Vietnam War was because of the draft. And an all-volunteer army is equally biased towards the poor, since those who enlist are typically those with no other opportunities.

But the reason there was so much domestic resistance to the Vietnam War was because of the draft. And an all-volunteer army is equally biased towards the poor, since those who enlist are typically those with no other opportunities.

The vietnam war isn't a good example though. It wasn't one of those 'lets all pull together' national crisis type dealios. The 'threat' was to remote and there was no effort to create an atmosphere of shared sacrifice.

Plus, there were no real compelling economic reasons to fight it. (And as Reagan showed us, you don't actually have to be involved in shooting to spend as much as you want on the military).

The second world war on the other hand...

The vietnam war isn't a good example though. It wasn't one of those 'lets all pull together' national crisis type dealios. The 'threat' was to remote and there was no effort to create an atmosphere of shared sacrifice.

Plus, there were no real compelling economic reasons to fight it. (And as Reagan showed us, you don't actually have to be involved in shooting to spend as much as you want on the military).

The second world war on the other hand...

That's my point. There was conscription during both WWII and the Vietnam War, but only during Vietnam did it spark popular opposition. A professional army is easier to deploy in an unjust war. If we had a draft, especially one without the loopholes for the wealthy, then the Bush administration may have thought twice before invading Iraq.

That's my point. There was conscription during both WWII and the Vietnam War, but only during Vietnam did it spark popular opposition. A professional army is easier to deploy in an unjust war. If we had a draft, especially one without the loopholes for the wealthy, then the Bush administration may have thought twice before invading Iraq.

What I am saying is that if you have a situation where there is a national feeling of sacrifice you can get away with it, conscription regardless. Just or unjust doesn't matter. Take WWI instead then.

It would be fairly easy to maneuver the country into another total war should it be desired. Probably the only reason we haven't already had one is nuclear weapons. I would imagine the 70s would have turned out quite differently without them.

I don't have the energy to go through and read all the comments, so pardon if this has already been said.

Two things: It took a war to emancipate the slaves and put the kibosh to the Nazi concentration camps. Inasmuch as that, war is at least a worthy evil. A flashburst of insanity to stop a greater madness. I have a hunch that if WWII hadn't stopped them, the Nazi High Command would have exterminated the European Jew, the Rroma, and the other minorities they were targeting...and then they would have turned on their own people. Viciousness like that doesn't stop on its own.

I supported the war in Bosnia, and the war in Afghanistan. We should never have gone into Iraq because it took personnel, materiel and money away from Afghanistan, where we have a legit target. I wish we could have nailed Pol Pot instead of running around Viet Nam and tearing that nation apart.

Viciously dictatorial regimes deserve to have a war thrown at them. They won't stop otherwise.

That said, I'm with Sun Tzu 101%. Armed conflict should be an absolute court of last resort and it should be short, sharp and final, and not be a protracted process (like Iraq). Like Tony Stark said, "I prefer the weapon you only need to fire — ONCE." Do everything, EVERYTHING, you can, short of armed conflict. And when you have exhausted every last possible avenue of engagement with the enemy, then you pull out the fire and sharp edges and strike with incredible ferocity and swiftness.

Leave the citizenry alone and don't fuck with their sacred sites/holy ground. Henry V killed his own men who looted a church when he invaded France, a very smart move. Pissed-off locals would have mounted guerrilla attacks in revenge and compromised their objective.

If all you need to neutralize an adversary is to send in a squad of elite hitmen — do that, and stop there.

If all you need to accomplish the above is to woo their friends and support systems away from them — do that, and let them stand around with "Crap, what happens now?" looks on their faces.

If all you need is to surround and isolate the enemy — do that, and maintain. If, like Cuba, they tough it out and survive anyway, great for them.

If all you need to do is bribe the country into handing over their WMDs for destruction, go ahead and do it! It's probably cheaper than going to war with them.

I do believe in the system of warfare presented in the Rollerball world. Sporting events as ritual warfare. I love the Great Plains tribes' method of warfare: Counting Coup. Sneak up to a warrior with your coup stick, tap 'em with it, and you get their coup stick. "You're a bad warrior! You let me get close enough to tag you!"

What I am saying is that if you have a situation where there is a national feeling of sacrifice you can get away with it, conscription regardless. Just or unjust doesn't matter. Take WWI instead then.

It would be fairly easy to maneuver the country into another total war should it be desired. Probably the only reason we haven't already had one is nuclear weapons. I would imagine the 70s would have turned out quite differently without them.

Well, yes. It's more whether the people feel that it's justified. My point is that it raises the threshold of popular support necessary to wage war.

I wish we could have nailed Pol Pot instead of running around Viet Nam and tearing that nation apart.And that's part of the problem--it's not always clear who the good guys are and waging war can have unintended consequences. Destabilizing Cambodia as part of the Vietnam War helped lead to the Khmer Rouge gaining power. And it took an invasion by communist Vietnam to get rid of Pol Pot.