Why Is War Normal And Acceptable?

Do you want me to use a condom?

 

I have no preference as to your props so that deliberation is up to you.

 

its so we dont get bored with each other..

 

Perpetual war is not a theoretical certainly according to any set of natural law.Human nature is not necessarily fixed in regard to conflict,and with sustained diplomacy and skilful negotiation some of the more soluble conflicts around the globe could find more or less binding resolution.At present is largely men who initiate war.Is it a coincidence that the kind of people who enter the army and progress up the ranks to generals and majors carry with them a liking for warlike scenarios,that they harbour within themselves a fascination for danger,crucial decision making and an actual willingness to commit genocide? In civilized states the declaration of war or partial engagement in armed conflicts comes down from war-brief meetings,once again by men who are far removed from the danger of conflict themselves.Such men act upon a disconnect.They are sheltered from the raw acrid barbarity of real-time conflict.Also we have to accept that some men,either through genetics or socialization,like fighting and violence.They like the danger,the excitement,the feeling they are fighting for a cause they consider just.In some poor countries,joining the military is one of the few guarantees of paid work.

There are many different ways in which wars take place around the globe.Some are relatively self-contained tribal skirmishes fought with piecemeal weaponry,some are hi-tech surgical sorties against known targets with relatively little danger to the striking force.Other on going conflicts such as the Israeli/Palestine represent what social theorists call "The Differend",which is essentially a conflict wherein the two warring parties both are able to claim some legitimacy to back up their modus operandi.These conflicts often remain the hardest to resolve,as both sides seeing they are in the right,won't concede any ground,whilst outright conclusion to hostilities remains indefinitely deferred.

The question is,how much of the world is at war right now,and what is the toll of daily casualties of all total conflict.How far and localized are these conflicts going on now.How beneficial is intervention,or should we just consider relatively small outbreaks of armed struggle in far away places to be a saddening yet unavoidable tragedy that the civilized world can subsume so long as they don't disturb our relatively well functioning first world democracies.Would it not be crueller to be kind and let sparring communities sort it out amongst themselves,and not escalate conflict by feeding them arms,intelligence and reconnaissance.Removing Saddam was a travesty of gargantuan proportions,Libya is in deep trouble.Tensions in Ukraine would best be resolved by laying aside the pro-European agenda for now and the furtherance of real well-intentioned peace talks that recognize no regional conflict should be fought at the expense of dead children caught up in the crossfire.

What is the nature of war today.Can we visualize circumstances where things could be go thermonuclear.I don't think the ruling elites ever intend to engage in this over petty squabbles,but do you think nuclear weapons have helped to keep the peace or should nations bi-laterally decommission the nukes.One of the most serious of nuclear catastrophes would be if some extreme Islamist group got the bomb and had the balls to use it.

Personally I generally operate as a complete paecophile.I will use appropriate force to try and defend myself if attacked but have no time for the glamorization of violence,hard-man/tough guy culture and all it' accoutrements.I understand that world leaders are highly pressurized and probably have their own insecurities and paranoid episodes.I see nation states getting very hawkish lately,flexing their muscles and so on.Basically what it comes down to for me is over the top and disproportionate nationalism.It's one increasingly small world after all,and we should all love each other as fellow humans,brothers and sisters and stars of the universe rather than engage in petty territorial disputes,past grievances and selfish grab for resources.I won't get a lot of likes for this,and am no illuminati new world order freak,but I really think some kind of one world government would be a good idea,or at least an umbrella organization that coordinates resources,ensures equal distribution of food,and keeps the corporations in check.Of course there are the South American drug cartels and high level crime syndicates to worry about.I would suggest that countries keep their own national identities and sovereign status but that a world legislature is created to coordinate reduction in damage to the environment,planning for infrastructure,regular peace initiatives and cultural exchange programs,outreach work disembodied children and the spiritually and physically dispossessed,conclusion and perfection of the technological project so we can move beyond comodity fetishism and self-objectification with our possessions,final forgiveness and absolution between all peoples for past wrong doings.Of course I could go on.There are thousands of things we could be enacting on this planet to spread joy,happiness,freedom from fear and social conclusion for everyone.The future is unwritten.I am,I suppose,indulging in my naive idealsm.Many people express serious and justified doubts about world government,but slowly and cautiously I hope that we can move towards a world community of shared and rightly allocated resources,shared knowledge and a planet of joyful cooperation as opposed to wasteful and jealous competition.This is my dream.It needn't be your nightmare.Even if there are never any institutional structures put in placement,I'm going to start networking to and directing my thought forms to converge on this very pleasant wavelength.You are not alone.We can do something.Down with death and fasco power trip culture.Excuse me by the way,I'm on drugs

 

In response to the question above about the wisdom of arming conflicts

I think everyone should be able to bear arms but I also think those arms should be of your own capacity to produce and there shouldn't be such a thing as an arms industry where profits are made by their use in war. It simply increases the likely hood of mortal combat and that is a good thing unless you are eager to die or be threatened with death or destruction.

 

Red Adair made his living fighting fire with fire.

War is a constant natural process which we humans are constantly engaged in with varying degrees of violence. What we define as peace is when the violence is minimal, and primarily words. When our differences with one another cannot be resolved with words alone, a point exists at which a violent reaction becomes acceptable as the means of returning to a war of words. Unconditional surrender is a rare occurrence, but even then it does not eliminate war totally with those who have surrendered.

 

It pains me to imagine entering a warzone where I might be shot, burnt, bombed, or in any way dismembered.

So why should we be okay with other people going out there and fighting these wars?

How do we even go on in this way?

I get disgusted, weary and nervous just thinking of this endless killing machine we're constantly feeding.

 

It's funny, on Facebook there are several people on my friends list who seem to consistently support military action all across the globe. Those people tend to be overweight or middle aged women who have zero chance of ever being sent to war. I think you're touching on a good point here; it's easy to ask complete strangers to go fight in our stead, particularly when it has little impact on the homefront.