Moegreche: Though I don't really agree with what chiliad_nodi said, I think I can understand it.
I think by "easy" he meant that it is the easy way out, that war may be the route taken by those who don't have the courage/willingness to work things out diplomatically, etc.
Anyway, I think that all other options should be used before you resort to war. I think that anyone who says war isn't the answer should tell us what the answer is...
It is much easier to send the army to another country than to deal with problems peacefully. War is the only thing people are able to think of as a last resort to conflicts. If they wanted to compete, why such a violent event? I can destroy a building much easier than I can put one up. And if I destroy one, I end up with a pile of rubble. If I build one, then I end up with a building. In the idea of war, I can kill the opponent much easier than I can change his beliefs. I never said war wasn't costly, just that it easier to wage war than try to hold peace. Human nature will overpower the will for peace. War is easier on government and the people than trying to compromise. Plus, I am guessing that most people don't know the true horrors of war, even while one is going on.
And to reply to "If you guys are just posting ridiculous stuff to get little points or whatever, then fine." I say that if I wanted just points, I would post shorter messages.
This might sound silly, but I don't think destruction is a necessary condition of war. Why would a group of people want to declare war on another group? The only reason I can see it that a group wants to gain something, be it power, economic influence, land, security, etc. (I don't consider attacking a group of people just to kill them as war, I think that's just genocide). This is what I meant by those who view history as conscious choices as war having its own intrinsic worth. Regardless of who attacked who, both sides have the potential to gain something from the conflict, even if it is something as simple as security. I totally agree that most people (including me) have no idea what war is like. I bet if everyone involved in declaring the war had to go help fight it, there would be fewer wars today. But then again, it is only recently that a country's leader did not obtain his/her power through military achievements, so maybe I'm wrong. I'm also not sure what you mean by human nature overpowering the will for peace. I mean, I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what aspects of human nature would affect that. Also, sorry for the ridiculous post comment, I was just cranky. Your posts are well thought out and insightful.
The human nature is mostly greed. Greed is what causes a political leader to declare war and waste the lives of so many people. (Including his own troops). Compromise would be part of the picture if there was no greed. I think that war would not happen if People were willing to compromise. Destruction is not the idea of war, as you said, but it is always a deadly side-effect. We now have the tehnology of the non-lethal weapon. Why not just use that. This may sound like a sill idea, but think about it. What if war were like paintball? It would still let the armies develop new technology and will still be based on stategy and all the other war aspects. It would cost less... There are probable flaws in this paintball idea, but I want to see what people think. On a final note, another quote: People like peace, but they are not willing to take wounds for it like they do for war.
War solved alot of things before, Hitler and the Nazis conquest is propably the biggest one. If we hadn't retaliated, we might all be speaking German by now. So saying war is disgusting is wrong. It is only right if we are provoked.
Even it did "solve" hitler, hee used war to take control in the first place. He used very violent tactics. War created hitler before it solved him. Without war, we never would have had that problem in the first place.
War solves alot of things, it advances our technology, which then solves a bunch of other things, it solves dispute faster and better than most methods, without war the world would become overcrowded, and, its fun to watch! Yes, I know, all the hippies are gonna get mad at me for saying that, but, whatever.
i dont think it helps, its just old men sending you men to die, and when it over the two are still mad at each other (if ones not already dead), so pretty much it doesnt teach anything
War can be very contraversial. I see war as a way to help solve things. It doesn't do the whole job, but it helps. I can also see why it doesn't help at all. Men killing men for a victory. I don't like death at all especially through war. I'm not sure I'm confident to take a side.
