Your views on War

[Myth]

This new thread asks for your views on this matter.
is War something that is a part of being human?
And how do you think it feels to be the soldier
fighting in a war? what do you think feels the
soldiers thoughts? is it fear, joy, or maybe
duty?

[Mask of Winters]

I can't say what it would be like to be a soldier. I've not had the experience, and I don't really like speculating on things I have no experience in.

As for the rest, war is natural. We see it exhibited on a small scale in nature. As long as there are opposing views, as long as people stay divided, etc., there will be war. The only way to change this are to unite everyone under one rule and eleminate free thought, or to change nature itself. The former is by far more likely than the latter.

[Empress Artisan]

I havent been in war, obviously, but Ive done bootcamp for a year and I respect soldiers for putting their energy into the army, even if I think war is stupid.

[Hypocrit]

I like War, personally. Low Rider is catchy and, although not break through, definately a big step that allowed people such as Beck to even begin.

[Saint Fawkes]

I think war can occasionally be necessary, but most of the wars in history have not been.

[Lintu_Ciel]

I kind of and kind of don't think that war is a part of being human. And coming from a military family and being in a military based class, I think that what fills the soldiers' thoughts and what they feel is pride to be able to do something for their country. They realize that without them, we have no way of defending our country, and that we respect them immensly.

No, I'm not a fan of war, I hate it with everything in me, but I love those soldiers more than anything. I think that war is pointless and just another way to bully someone or say that someone is better than another. I just think that it's stupid, a waste of time, and something that hurts more than it heals.

[Rafael Domination]

I think war can occasionally be necessary, but most of the wars in history have not been.


You couldn't have said it better! :D

Conflict is a natural thing for all creatures, and with more 'developed' minds, that means we have more things to argue about besides territory, food and mates. It also means we can feel rage, malice, etc and cook up more ways to kill each other.

Does that make it right? No. But occasionally, a mass of people come along that just have to be stopped. Would I prefer peace? YES!!! But when it can't be avoided, we might as well end the conflict quickly and without damaging the lives of others in the process.

Edit: I just remembered Malthus' doctrine - war, famine, disease, etc are supposedly 'necessary' to keep out population under control. I'm not supporting or denying it. I just kinda wanted to bring that topic up and see what you guys thought of it...

[Stirly]

Human beings have a nasty habbit of thinking that their culture/country is "better" than everyone else's. Most wars have either been over territory, religion, or an attempt to change another country's culture. Some wars make sense. Hitler had to be stopped, enough said. The crusades, on the other hand, were downright obnoxious. It depends upon the situation, I suppose.

[Mask of Winters]

If you've never heard the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath, listen to it, pay careful attention to the lyrics. If you have, congratulations you already know the point I'm trying to make.

[Tie Dye Tuxedo]

I don't think that war is an innate part of human nature... sooner or later we will outgrow it, just like we've outgrown canniballism, inscest, etc.

[Saint Fawkes]

Really? We have to resolve conflict somehow, and the fact is not everyone is going to listen to reason. War should never a first choice (like with this preemptive strike bullshit), but it should be an option.

[Tie Dye Tuxedo]

^exactly, we'll learn to take a different road other than war.

[Ascension Dystopic]

^exactly, we'll learn to take a different road other than war.

I dunno. Some people naturally want more things than others. Because of this, they take it. The other person is upset, they strike back, ta-da. War.

Unless you screw with people's brains (a la Brave New World), I don't think war will be coming to an end anytime soon, if ever, while the human race is still around.

[Dunnskee]

I say America should get the hell out of all the countries we're in, bring back our military completely, and focus on problems at home. Bush just asked for another 48 billion dollars.
If we leave those countries, we will fix our crap. And everyone will be happy.
The only reason to go to war is if we are provoked. Then we drop a nuke and head right back home to our wives.

[Tie Dye Tuxedo]

^not classically... if you look at history, no war in the 20th century was won by the aggressors.

[Hypocrit]

Is any war truly a victory for the people?

Ooh... cryptic. Gosh I am just SO counter-culture!

[Tie Dye Tuxedo]

^I don't think that anyone wins wars, actually, there are just varying degrees of defeat.

[khaaalil]

War is not necessary like a bunch of things we have are not necessary. Of course as the strongest specie everything we have doesn't have to be deemed necessary. If we cared so much about the necessary we wouldn't even live in a capitalistic system, truth is that it is human to have an ego and a sense of progress and those things that create wars. Wars are not necessary but they are entirely human. Whether it is for revolution or for oppression, people will always want more and people will always fight for it.

And no, I don't respect soldiers or anyone who thinks they're doing something for their "great" country by killing other people just so some people can get richer. I respect soldiers as much as I respect sheep or pawns in a chessboard.

[khaaalil]

I don't think that war is an innate part of human nature... sooner or later we will outgrow it, just like we've outgrown canniballism, inscest, etc.

I don't know where incest falls but cannibalism is a great example. You can call it the evolution of cannibalism, the primitive man lacked food, so he ate someone else. A country lacks something, he gets it from other. More people die with guns than with teeth, so in no way is war something less than cannibalism. It's actually more brutal and it's not even a need. Point is that we've gotten more violent not more moral.

[Arthur-Dent]

Humans, sadly, will most likely not outgrow war, I think it is unfortunately part of human nature. War, or at least violent aggression against mass groups of people opposing you, is embedded in our DNA. It's all genetics, really. Animals, when in the wild, almost always need some form of aggression, it's just stuck in our genes for the last few millions years. People have the potential of waking up and saying, "hey, you guys, war is pretty sucky," but it's not very likely. More likely, if we ever do stop it, it would be a natural evolutionary step; those aggressive genes finally would wear off, though that would probably take millions of years. I do think we've made progress in the last few thousand years; war isn't as common as it was in the middle ages or antiquity, yet that's probably with the help of technology and communication and larger, more unified countries rather than more people realizing it's not always the greatest thing. Oddly enough, in theory, "super countries" like the ones in 1984 might actually reduce the amount of war... but then it might not. I'm not sure I care to find out.

[khaaalil]

You're basically saying that homogenizing the world is a way out of war. It's actually just as bad. Uniting everyone for the wrong causes at the will of certain people would cause a revolution. Awareness is a beautiful thing and with wrong means or not, it wouldn't let something like that happen. Empires always fall man. And btw, wars were more frequent then but history repeats itself in a fractal way. It depends on what you can lie to people about, what's acceptable in different times. It's not a line where the number of wars decreases, it's more like waves. And how can you even say that about super countries? Remember what the abuse of powerful nations caused? People chose Hitler in desperation and we got one of the most horrible periods in history. Remember in old times all the books burned? All the cultures destroyed? No man. Super countries aren't the way to solve anything.

[Common Sense]

. Oddly enough, in theory, "super countries" like the ones in 1984 might actually reduce the amount of war... but then it might not. I'm not sure I care to find out.

Good Lord, no no no no no. No "super countries". The United Nations is bad enough. There already movements to try and make a North American Union between Canada, Mexico and the United States.

You can even throw in the WTO, and all those other organizations as attempts to try and do this.


A one single government body for the world is incredibly horrific thinking

[khaaalil]

the united nations are a good idea. Just too idealistic for the contemporary situation to follow right.

[Arthur-Dent]

You're basically saying that homogenizing the world is a way out of war. It's actually just as bad. Uniting everyone for the wrong causes at the will of certain people would cause a revolution. Awareness is a beautiful thing and with wrong means or not, it wouldn't let something like that happen. Empires always fall man.To quote someone, "Good Lord, no no no no no." Read what I said again - that's not what I was saying at all, I wasn't saying that super countries were a good thing, that they are an answer to anything, obviously not, I know they're just the opposite. What I'm saying is is that there's more less of chance, ironically, for a full-fledged us vs. them war, more likely it would get eaten from the insides. This defenitely doesn't mean I'm for something like a super-country, quite the contrary. Not only would it most likely eat itself up, but a single ruling force, even if democratic, would be too much power, likely cause horrendous unjust and not to mention probably the start of numerous revolutions and civil wars.

I don't get what people have with the UN. Do you honestly think it does more harm than good?

[Common Sense]

the united nations are a good idea. Just too idealistic for the contemporary situation to follow right.

United Nations is a completely terrible idea, its just an added bureaucracy. Libya and Sudan on the U.N. Human Rights Commission? :rolleyes:

[khaaalil]

Actually man. The united nations do more good technically, I live in a third world country and you can notice that the united nations do work helping the poor. The thing with the united nations is that many of the powerful countries that rule it only want power and many of the things they do contribute to an economical and cultural colonialism. But that's just some countries, which is exactly my point. One of the things that's wrong with the UN is that it would be nothing without the US no matter how much the US doesn't follow its ideals. Someone always has the power, obv the ones with more money. That's why it can't work in our system.

[khaaalil]

To quote someone, "Good Lord, no no no no no." Read what I said again - that's not what I was saying at all, I wasn't saying that super countries were a good thing, that they are an answer to anything, obviously not, I know they're just the opposite. What I'm saying is is that there's more less of chance, ironically, for a full-fledged us vs. them war, more likely it would get eaten from the insides. This defenitely doesn't mean I'm for something like a super-country, quite the contrary. Not only would it most likely eat itself up, but a single ruling force, even if democratic, would be too much power, likely cause horrendous unjust and not to mention probably the start of numerous revolutions and civil wars.

I don't get what people have with the UN. Do you honestly think it does more harm than good?

Sorry I didn't interpret it that way, my bad. Pretty useless statement thought kinda like saying "if everyone was dead there would be peace".

[Common Sense]

Actually man. The united nations do more good technically, I live in a third world country and you can notice that the united nations do work helping the poor. The thing with the united nations is that many of the powerful countries that rule it only want power and many of the things they do contribute to an economical and cultural colonialism. But that's just some countries, which is exactly my point. One of the things that's wrong with the UN is that it would be nothing without the US no matter how much the US doesn't follow its ideals. Someone always has the power, obv the ones with more money. That's why it can't work in our system.

The United States definitely does not control the United Nations. Completely the opposite.

Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.
Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

I tend to agree with all of this...above ^

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

[khaaalil]

DUDE OMG EXACTLY MY POINT? Patriotism was NEVER a good thing! What I mean is that the United States actually do things that are different from UN ideals. Yes you're completely right, if they submit to the UN and follow the UN correctly then of course, America as we know it, the empire, will end. Simple as that. Because the UN helps all the nations that the US feeds off. My point is that the UN can't get rid of the states easily. It's head quarters are in new york anyways. The US has too much power to get thrown out of the UN or whatever.

[J]

"How it feels to the soldier?"

How the motherfuck do you think it feels.

War is never a good thing. It does good things sometimes.

Killing a few hundred thousand people can be a good thing, right?

Retarded thread.