People don't actually die in war games.

That i can agree with. Humans have come up with some pretty impressive machinery to fight wars, and they have helped civilian applications of those technologies too. Still after WW2 technology has advanced pretty impressively without the need for major wars.

Conflict may be in human nature, but is not our duty as humans to raise above such primal urges?

War is not good, but its also not bad either.

Some really sensitive people in here. War is a part of life. There's no way for "world peace" or anything of that sort.

And anyways war is a piece of history. A lot of people love history. What's wrong with that?

okay seriously?
we dont need politics
war is war its human nature
i personally like war for great leader like Patton, Alexander,Caeser and countless others
people saying that its stupid to have a favorite war has never studied in depth about war

yes WW2 was horrific but look at the Generals, and the tech
same with WW1 on the tech side

and the use of chemical weapons as well.

When i see http://rlv.zcache.com/wwi_sergeant_and_his_dog_wearing_gas_masks_1915_card-p137922926108828455qiae_400.jpg, I think wow...

ive seen a picture like that
pretty crazy, also crazy that it wasnt really used in war after WW1

War is interesting when it's more exciting. You really made your argument look better. :rolleyes:

Why should war be "fair?" Why should it be "honorable?" How can it even be either? And since when was it ever? War is not a game that you play on the level, people's lives are at stake, both on the field and at home. Those who fight should damn well know it, they cannot afford to fight "fairly," and they have no reason to expect their enemies to do so either. Why do you think different weapons have been developed, or certain tactics have been used? To get an edge and advantage over the enemy and have a better chance of winning. That's how it's always been, how it is now, and how it always will be. All those nasty things you mention that aren't "right?" Fundamentally, nothing new.

A fair fight is a sign of poor tactics. You don't die for your country, you make the idiot on the other side die for his. All's fair in love and war.

The baseline for all reasons of war (economic etc.) are for greed, revenge and self-defence whilst these are varied upon due to the modern day circumstances they are still instinctual reasons

@Suffca, Peace is possible, but not a perfect peace, there will always be discontent terrorism of some form (Be it graffiti or bombing) but Wprld Peace btween all the countries is possible if you define World peace as no 'hot' wars, and no actual countries warring (small time activists/terrorists are minorities)

First off, a most inspiring response - but holy run on sentence, Batman!

War is merely a word we use to describe a struggle between two parties. This can be between your own psyche vs the needs and wants of society or between two nations. This is important - war is everywhere. It is this struggle and this unwillingness to compromise our ideals that makes us great. Diplomacy, morality - these are merely tools in which we can conduct war on a verbal and emotional level. Political maneuvering is war. Office politics is a war. That argument you had with your girlfriend about who gets to take the trash out is a war. Compromise, sacrifice - more weapons. Instead of damaging us physically, they afflict us emotionally. Society constructs around us the ideal that no one should have to give up too much to do what they want, the restrictions they place are imposed for the greater good. Can you live without a social construct? Will you be able to operate essentially as a hermit? What about your need to reproduce? What about your need to seek companionship? Are you going to deny all this because you have your intelligence and morality to fall back on? These are higher things which a mind cannot be fulfilled with if its baser instincts are not requited. Let's say, for instance, your dream job is to be a professional luthier. Making guitars, violins, etc is your job. You are the head honcho. Everyone is buying your stuff. But you have no friends, your workmates hate you, you have no family, you can't feed yourself (after paying your staff, shop costs, etc), you have no money, you can't afford a house but you've still manage to churn out really good instruments day after day. How long would you stay in a job like that if another was offered where you're working in a tight knit team that is almost like family, it gives you housing, retirement benefits and the occasional deep sea fishing trip where you met that enterprising young woman last time by the docks?

Your turn! [My entire argument is based around Maslowe's "hierarchy of needs". Poke holes in it!]

So theres nothing honorable about dying for your country?

So the US joining in the European campaign was for either greed, revenge or self-defense? That would only work if the US only entered the war in the Pacific campaign. What about the American Civil War? The Revolutionary War? The French Revolution? ETC. These were all motivated by simple human instinctual feelings of greed, revenge or self defense?

Regarding World Peace. Seeing as how it is very unlikely that we will breach the laws of physics and create unlimited energy, world peace is not in the foreseeable future.

Not according to the enemy.

The Revolutionary wars are all defending one's 'group' against the oppresive 'group' which is at its roots self-defence. The US entered the war after Pearl Harbor did they not?

It is not the amount of energy that is the problem, it is how that energy is distributed we have enough materials to provide for humanity, but it is a minority that has most of those materials

Pretty much any civil war ever fought. I'd even call what happened in Egypt a war of politics. Civil wars usually carry a load of political and cultural badassery along with epic battles. Top that WW2 buffs.

I don't think you understand.

1. The US did enter the war after Pearl Harbor. However, they entered the war in BOTH campaigns. Both European and Pacific. Now, according to you, the US did this out of self-defense and revenge, correct? OK. That is understandable because we had just been bombed by the Japanese. Going to war against them counts for two parts, both self-defense and revenge. But the European campaign? What was the purpose for entering the war there as well?

2. I don't quite understand your reasoning here. Providing technology and oil to all of the world only increases the drain on the limited amount of resources available to us.

Germany declared war on us. Plus, we screwed the Japs out of a huge percentage of their oil supply, along with helping most of the democratic nations at war with the Axis ( I'm pretty sure we were helping the Australians ).

Edit: I say 'we' because I'm from the US.

America entered Europe because Germany still thought we'd be dead within a couple years and declared war on us which was a massive mistake
so while kicking Japanese we also kicked Italians and Germans in the face for declaring war on us when we attacked there ally in defense

No, because as I said, you don't die for your country: you make the enemy die for his, and vise-versa! Soldiers aren't there to die, they're there to kill. Dying is a potential cost that's better to avoid, for both you and your country's sake. And what Nami said: the enemy's not going to give a [censored] about your honor.

True, the human psyche is made for a 'group' we are one of the rare creatures between solitary (mooses and the like) and massive herds (Wildebeests, Fruit Bats), we are in a rare slot in the world where our group is large, but we require knowledge of who is in it; like lions and elephants. Our instincts, however, are less strong than that of an animals, we can overcome our fears, whereas a guinea pig even if it knows that you are the life giving hand that feeds it, will still run. We are open to change, whilst our bodies have stopped evolving, our minds do instead; in the 50's people like Lady Gaga (whom, for the record, I dislike) would be arrested for indecency, whereas today she is given a hero status, if humans decided to live as hermits it would become the norm, because of the same adaptiveness that makes us able to survive anywhere from the Artic to the Sahara out of necessity, so to, can we, change our ideals. You can not deny that our ideals have changed immensley over time.

The human psyche can survive in the conditions described, the greatest people, in fact, take Henry Ford or Isaac Newton two of the greatest contributers to society, both battered by oppression, even Hitler was fighting what in his twisted mind was perceived as oppression.

Humankind only advances through struggle, all famous inventions are created from struggle, be it against society or another country, all heros are made from struggle. I would go so far as to say that humankind needs an oppressive influence to become more than it is. If that oppressive influence needs to be isolation from the group, then there will be someone who will do that. A humans actions are not pre ordained by evolution unlike a mouses, humans do different things in the same circumstances, whilst most will be bound to their group (be it country or family) mut some will not, due to the fact that a persons 'instincts' are moulded by indivindual experiences, not by experiences as a species, which is what differentiates us from animals. Whilst animals instinct can be moulded to a point, their psyche is far less malleable than that of our own.

I know it seems rambly, but I was up all of last night because my son was sick, but I hope I stuck to the topic and didn't misinterpret/ignore what you said

Oh, sure....

(!)



I do, I just don't think that word means what you want to force upon me in your post to think it does.

As for the rest of your post, it was a pile of... well, I'll remain polite. Just because "we're good at it" doesn't mean we should condone it. We're really good at extreme pollution and causing mass extinction as well. Does that suddenly make any of those two OK? I don't think it does. We need stimulation in order to not just innovate but generally live actively as well, but if our only means of stimulation is war then no, I don't love that kind of humanity. I could write a lot longer response than this, but I'm too tired and honestly I don't see the point.

One other thing, though - I think you'd have a vastly different feeling about wars if you ever actually experienced one first-hand.

Curse you flood control!, so many conversations, so little time :swear:

Okay, I'll start where you did, America entered the European campaig for a number of reasons, but if Germany did win the war, they would have gone after America next, so it was self defence, America also were in the process of accepting the UK and Australia, into their 'group' and defending them, which I construe as 'self'-defence as defence, in it's basest meaning is protecting yourself, and at that point the alliance (in the Americans interpratation) meant that the Allies were America (if that makes sense, they took the allies as being them 'self')

There is enough technology and energy sources (ethanol, natural gases) the problem is that too much is going to too little, most of the worlds wealth is held by a small amount of people, if we begin to share it out, we won't run out, I know it sounds communist but Communism is flawed as well, if there are two farmers in a communist country, and one is a lazy [censored], and theother is an honest Joe, they both have a field and a cow, then the lazy one will do nothing and eat his cow whilst the Honest Joe, will till his field grow wheat, take his cow to a bull, raise the calf, and at the end of the day the government will take half the grain and one cow and give it to the lazy [censored], the Honest Joe (rightfully) says [censored] this and either becomes a lazy [censored], or moves to a capitlist country, which is why Communism = Economic suicide

They still join with full knowledge that they might die, there is honor and bravery in that.

On a side note:
The enemy are heartless monsters that don't have honor and don't deserve mercy.

The enemy are people too. They only share a different viewpoint.

Our enemies must be different.