You can try saying that again after you have gun pointed at your head
I doubt loloynage2 means that in any offensive way, but he is right. Violence is the ultimate form of control, whereas nothing overcomes it if you don't want it to. Whilst I value morality and logical mindsets above anything else, I can't argue that a person with all the reasons in the world to do something could if he has an army stopping him from doing it.
Also, he probably would say that with a gun to his head, survival instincts mean so much to the average person, even though they don't see it.
As for the main-topic. We don't need war, but general stupidity calls for it often. Am I really going to go indepth? No, anything but violence probably won't happen in our lifetimes, and it's a perfect world (as long as there is violence for physical training and discipline stemming from that training, I'm cool with it).
I believe that war is a tool, and that it is therefore value-neutral. A hammer is simply a tool; used to build a home, it is a good thing, but used to cave someone's head, it's a bad thing. By the same token, war: when used to enslave, oppress, wantonly destroy, and commit acts of genocide like Hitler did, it is evil; but used to stop evil, free the oppressed, and destroy those who would cause suffering to the innocent, it is a good thing. War is the simplest and most efficient way to subdue evil in the world. One could argue the point that no matter how smart the bombs, there is always damage done to those you seek to free or protect. That is the price of living in a fallen world. But on the other hand, the waging of war has given humanity many beneficial technologies that have as much or more need in times of peace than war. New medical techniques and medicines, high-performance aircraft, radar, emergency foods that can be stored almost permanently, even humble Velcro - the list is long. Perhaps the greatest use for war, though, is peace. Sic Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war. The thought of being blasted from here to kingdom come is often enough to make aggressive, bellicose leaders and global thugs still the rattling sabers and think twice about starting trouble. Appeasement only enables those kinds of people; they must be dealt with in a manner that understand, which is to say they must be threatened with overwhelming and decisive force and those threats must be backed with the will to carry them out to the fullest extent necessary. War is useful, but it must be used with great discretion, and care must be taken not to lose sight of the reasons that brought it about, or the fact that it is a very dangerous tool and should not be used lightly.
I doubt loloynage2 means that in any offensive way, but he is right. Violence is the ultimate form of control, whereas nothing overcomes it if you don't want it to.
when i read war i can't deny the death and killing. thats a foundation for war. if you take away that part. then war isn't war anymore. then you get something like the cold war and the cold war is not a real war.
and if youve ever been in war you couldn't post a sentence like that. if your just 1 day in war you will remember that day for the rest of your life because it will be the worst of all
i just can't deny the killing when it comes to war.
but used to stop evil, free the oppressed, and destroy those who would cause suffering to the innocent, it is a good thing.
This is the worst thing though - it isn't a good thing, it's defeating a bad thing.
War is the simplest and most efficient way to subdue evil in the world.
Simplest, sometimes, efficient? It depends who your enemy is, convincing them would be more efficient.
Perhaps the greatest use for war, though, is peace.
Definitely. Only if there's no other option, though.
or the fact that it is a very dangerous tool and should not be used lightly.
It should be the last tool in your kit, in my opinion.
Thank you for understanding my point
No problem
when i read war i can't deny the death and killing. thats a foundation for war
The foundation of war is wanting something. The meaning of war is the method you do it in - death and killing.
if your just 1 day in war you will remember that day for the rest of your life because it will be the worst of all
As close as real life it'll get to, Band of Brothers and The Pacific. One of the top rated comments for the BoB trailer kind of explains what I'm trying to put out. More talking in the Pacific, hopefully that helps.
Why does everyone who actually tries to take over the world labeled an antichrist?
Well, usually it's because they're willing to crush all opposition violently in order to do it (eg. Hitler).
And I think "Biological" explanations are far too simple, and don't take into account the true depth of the human brain. Biology would have all men and women constantly mating, but we aren't (for the most part :P) because we have social customs and dynamics that we follow.
To answer the thread title, I'd say that the origin of war is territorial control; you have to push people off territory or keep them from entering yours, and both of these involve fighting. Nowadays, it's generally about killing people who are a threat to your people.
There is only good and evil. If war is defeating a bad(evil) thing, then it is by default a good thing.
depends on how you do it. if you hand out weapons to rebels. because your supporting their cause.(like they did in libya few months ago) but you never try to get those weapons back. then you only make that country worse then how it was. handing out weapons to people whit problems that nothing got to lose is a bad idea. no matter how good you tryed to be. congo for example is still fighting whit the weapons the usa gave them in 1964. after that war. they had 3 civil wars. wich they couldn't have had if the usa didn't gave them those weapons. (they do not have the money to buy guns. their used to fight whit machetes and alike)
There is only good and evil. If war is defeating a bad(evil) thing, then it is by default a good thing.
depends on how you do it. if you hand out weapons to rebels. because your supporting their cause.(like they did in libya few months ago) but you never try to get those weapons back. then you only make that country worse then how it was. handing out weapons to people whit problems that nothing got to lose is a bad idea. no matter how good you tryed to be.
Like any tool, war must be used responsibly and never loaned. Also, I'm pretty sure the weapons in the Congo are Russian, not American.
