War is necessary, no?

What happens when you don't have some sort of pecking order. Y'know. A line of respect, essentially. An unwritten heirarchy of sorts.

If everybody agreed to mind their own business or tend to their own shit, the world would go crazy. Invasions all over the place with crazy bombings and loss of civillians etc. Somebody has to establish themselves as the superior of the group. If there is no superior there is no leverage to keep agreements in place if somebody tries to back out or ignore the agreement.

War is the necessary means in which a pecking order is established and order is maintained.

Discuss.

 

a wisely formed constitution under a decent government coupled with a strong justice system would be a far better way to establish and maintain order.

war isn't necessary, it's just an unfortunate part of human nature. interesting question to ask in a "hippie" forum, by the way.

 

Yes. War is necessary.

 

Within your own country it is a great way to do those things, I agree. Word wide you can't expect people to follow your constitutional laws, so you make agreements. If a country violates that agreement, how else can you respond?

Embargo? They blow up your blockade. Then how do you respond? Nasty letters?

Explain to me the alternative.

(And to the hippie comment: There's no better opposing side, is there?)

 

I dont think any modern day wars have been useful. But i suppose war is necessary in some cases.

 

war is a by product of "MY PENIS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS" how amny wars have been started over something significant VERY FEW. Take our current war, originally called the war on terror, it is BASICLY just an excuss for the US oil companies to own more oil. How ever a more apt named "War on people that have what we want" is to long for propaganda posters, thus we shall disguise it as a war on terror. I'm sorry a war on terror........do we really believe this...then again most of america will believe exactly what the media tells them to believe. These sheep are sitting at home eating thier processed food that may or may not still be made out of actual animals, on thier all leather couches totally ignoring that thier sons are out selling heroin and thier daughters are out selling thier bodies. These fat understimulated brainsstems attached to a zombie of a mind will stand up and CHEER for an invasion on iraq as long as they are told that iraq is the enemy. Whats next did bin laudin move to China, North Korea, what if the media told us that he was here in america would everyone GLADLY give up thier rights and freedom while that fuckin meat puppet, i don't mean bush specifically i mean any fuckin meat puppet that lies and buys his way into the white house, declares a state of marshall law?

 

I see no real reason why humanity couldn't work together as a whole, apart from our warlike and sometimes vicious ways. countries or people violating agreements and resorting to force in the first place are what makes this world so much more hostile than it has to be, the dilemma of whether to retaliate by force or not isn't the main problem.

as for the alternative, well, I'm probably an idealist and quite hopeful, but I think a united world government would have the potential to do a lot of good, if done in the right way.

there certainly isn't

 

I agree 100% that the problem lies in the inherent behavior of humans. You can't change it, so you have to react. In the end the only way to make somebody do what you want is by force or bribery regarldess of one word government or not. The people will eventually get tired of the rules that are forced on them and want to govern themselves. The powers that be will not want to take the financial hit OR deal with the resulting uprisings. Bribery and force are the only two ways to make people do what you want, and in many cases bribery wont work.

War is the only solution that guarantees the loser will have to do as you command and follow the rules that are agreed on.

 

surely there are other ways to inspire people to do something. if you could establish the kind of community small-town people have in the whole human race, we would be able to work together. of course, that's slightly unlikely.

in the end, humans are still what they were ten thousand years ago, savage and greedy. unless there is something threatening the whole of mankind, we will continue to kill eachother. it is so natural for us to unite against a common foe, so in this case our warlike nature could ironically save us from war, atleast internally.

war may be the only way to ensure the conquered do as they're told, but from war comes only hatred, and leads to situations like we have today in the Middle East, Tibet and the Baltic states. vendettas centuries old, hating just for the sake of hating.

 

We are animals after all. Perhaps highly evolved, capable animals, but we are but mere animals underneath the science and clothing.

 

No, war is not necessary.

You do not need to establish superiority through murder.

Conflict, on the other hand, is essential.

 

Conflict but no war? Gonna rock paper scissor it out?

 

Fitting question from The Prince.

Conflict between nations is inevitable.

That's why I suggest a solution of a single world government. Eventually humans will gain such a technological edge (nuclear, otherwise) that war would become too costly, and our alternatives will be to compromise (world government) or kill ourselves off.

You already see what happens to wars in the age of information. Wars can't last very long because both sides can't dehumanize each other anymore.

You ever heard of the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Resolution. It states that no two nations with McDonald's can exist in total war with each other for long.

It's tounge in cheek. But it's point is valid Increased global markets and co-dependence will have to end wars.

 

Conflict on small scale makes the world progress, builds character, establishes personal borders.

While war is just senseless. I really shouldn't explain why it's senseless though. Go and ask the hippies.

 

You talk of conflict on small scales helping the world progress, but between conflict and progression is resolution. Resolution most often is reached by a means of forceful competition(war). You've suggested no means of reaching the resolution that comes between conflict and progression. All I see is high-moral rhetoric.

 

Resolution that is reached through means of forceful competition is not a resolution at all.

 

I don't disagree with your overall premise but what the fuck is this line supposed to insinuate? If all countries agreed to mind their own shit war would break out everywhere?

 

More rhetoric. When the war stops and the loser concedes, resolve has been reached. Perhaps it is only temporary but it is more than you have offered in any alternative.

Gravity: If the USA, for instance, stopped backing smaller, less developed countries and stuck with the, "Not our fight" policy those types of invasions would become much more common would they not?

 

I have never heard of that and look more into it, but as it stands, I don't agree. I also haven't read the reasoning behind it.

What good has the age of information done us? When the Vietnam War was televised the war abrupty started coming to an end. This current war has been on television for what's growing near to a decade, and we still haven't been moved to fight, as citizens, for an end to it. That theory is not only tongue in cheek, but it is less valid today than ever before, IMO.

 

You don't see the realities of war on TV. You see a cleaned up censored version of it on TV for your little mind to make up a little decision.

If Iraq had the media acess that other Middle Eastern nations had, and we could have seen what went on in the font lines people wouldn't have been so apathetic.

It's absolutely more true today.