Poll: War ugh what is it good for! absolutely....everything?

[Lullabye]

War is in every way the necessary evil. Its been ever since the dawn of recorded history and will remain until the end of this earth.

can you say "realist" in a very sarcastic tone, then breath "neeee-ga-tive" in a sing song under your breath as you walk away? I know I can.

Sorry but its the truth, there is no way to truly end war. There will always be something that sparks conflict. I'm not negative it just the way that things have been throughout world history.

actually, theres a very simple solution to war. get rid of the aggressive side of humanity(chemically) and ta-da! no more war. I know the past sucked but we can actually change our selves at the chemical level now, so we can be actual peace loving citezens.

 

[donishiwa]

War is not good or necessary, just because it is good for the ecconmy doesn't mean anything. Simply put it a thing created by men to kill. It serves no other purpose just to simply get things thier way. Men have died for conutless centuries because of an argument or politics. Men killing eachother is not the solution. Enough said

 

[theSovietConnection]

War was a great way of keeping the population as well as those in power in check. Nothing quite like a violent revolution to make rulers pay a little more attention to their subjects. However, with the dawn of the Industrial Age, and the introduction of vehicles using combustibles for power as opposed to wind or man power, war brought in a new major negative; carbon emissions. Chemical weapons were also developed, and now we have the ultimate doomsday device, the nuclear bomb. So in short, I believe war was a good thing in the same sense as a forest fire. It kept situations such as overpopulation from spiralling out of control and helped relieve some tension between rulers. However, as with everything else we touch, the human race has ruined that as well.

 

[Grimm91]

War is in every way the necessary evil. Its been ever since the dawn of recorded history and will remain until the end of this earth.

can you say "realist" in a very sarcastic tone, then breath "neeee-ga-tive" in a sing song under your breath as you walk away? I know I can.

Sorry but its the truth, there is no way to truly end war. There will always be something that sparks conflict. I'm not negative it just the way that things have been throughout world history.

actually, theres a very simple solution to war. get rid of the aggressive side of humanity(chemically) and ta-da! no more war. I know the past sucked but we can actually change our selves at the chemical level now, so we can be actual peace loving citezens.

True, but I would not want society to be a bunch of drugged up zombies. That sound like a really bad science fiction novel. And besides who would really want to be all peaceful all the time? Life would get boring and humanity loves violence.

 

[Bobbovski]

War should only be used as the absolute last resort... A small scale low intensity war fought on the other side of the globe where the enemy can't strike at your industry can help the economy. But most wars destroys economies and countries. Doesn't take a genious to figure that out. War can create peace and democracy... but it can also create more war and dictatorship.

 

[zion505000]

War: the greatest solution to overpopulation.

 

[Stryc9]

*snip*

Actually, as this current war proves, it does NONE of those things.

What about the Iraq war? It removed Saddam from power. After all...He was committing Genocide on The Kurds ( i think that is how you spell it). You know a tribe found commonly in Northern Iraq. With the gasing and bombing of innocent people...yup no good reason for going to war.

Because things in Iraq are so much better now? At least under Saddam Huessien the people of Iraq and constant electricity and running water along with not having their country be a chaotic mess. This Team America World Police mentality that we've had since the end of WWII has been causing us nothing but problems. I guess I'm what is called an isolationist, we keep our nose out of other countries business until someone attacks us then we make those people pay the price.

 

[Kayevcee]

"It should be a crime"? Do you know what the nazis put on trial at Nuremberg were charged with? "Waging an aggressive war". Declaring war *is* a crime among UN members without a resolution declaring that it is both just and necessary. This was not done before the latest invasion of Iraq (the... fourth, maybe fifth since 1900?) hence all the ill-feeling between the US and UK and France and Germany afterwards. Well, some of the ill-feeling. Way too complex to get into here.

As for stimulating the economy... do you think the US economy would not have recovered from the depression without having to blow billions of 1942 dollars in waging war against Japan? I'm not convinced. Britain was on the front line (once it reached us) of World War 2 and by the end, even though we won it with a hell of a lot of support from friends and neighbours, we were financially and structurally f***ed*. We needed loans of such magnitude from the US to keep the war effort going and rebuild afterwards that we only finished paying them off in 2007.

Competition for profit or bragging rights, natural disasters etc can spur technological development just as well as impending doom. National pride (if you see that as something positive) can be generated with massive sporting events like the World Cup or the Olympics or, hell, by building stuff like bridges and towers. The upside being that nobody has to die over it. As for population control... is arbitrarily killing off as many of the fit young men of a nation as possible really the best idea we've got?

-Nick

*Also, half a million of our soldiers and civilians were dead.

 

[APPCRASH]

although with the increase in technology also goes the glory of war you no longer hear of people like achilles, seargent york, wellington, George Washington, war has lost its honor

Lost it's honor. Why, because we have missiles that can fly across a continent just to blow some unsuspecting guy up? Just because YOU don't hear about this "Glory of war" doesn't mean that honor laid down to fucking die. Maybe you are just reading the wrong paper.

 

[Jharry5]

War is a terrible waste of life - there's no denying that. This quote is something that describes it better than I ever could.
'War does not determine who is right; only who is left'. (Can't remember who's quote that is though).

Technology can be advanced by war, but this advance does not just come from war.

It should, in my opinion, be used only as a last resort. I don't think it'd be wise to say your country will never engage in war, as there will always be people who are intent on bringing destruction in the search for having their way, regardless of the consequences. For example, nuclear weapons; we know what they are capable of and it really is horrible, but I don't think we should get rid of our nuclear weapons (look at the nuclear missile tests of North Korea. But please let's not get into that).
Sometimes, it's a necessary evil; what about fighting against a ruthless dictatorship, for instance?
(Another quote to finish):

'If you want peace, prepare for war'.

 

[RomanLegacy]

The simple fact is that war is the single greatest force of change in the world. Look at some of the events of the past. As an american, I'm reminded of the American Revolution. The colonies "talked" with great britan for a long time, but where did that get them? It took a long bloody war for independance, and the result was the foundation of the first democratic republic of the modern world, one which most other systems of government in use today are in someway based upon.

The events up to the civil war were a series of long political debates between two sides, and in the end, when conflicts only kept rising, secession happened. A long war that eventually led to the unification of the states that we enjoy in america today, and a true end to slavery.

People don't change there ways because you ask them nicely. True diplomacy only can exist in the tensions leading to a possible conflict, or after one. It takes a society who precieves itself as "right" and "correct" to force another to change, to match what society today precieves as "right" and "just". We've been warring for thousands of years, because it works. Telling our opponents to stop being meanie-heads, or to stop opposing our expansion, never works.

If you want to be an Idealist and a Pacifist, thats fine. But realize that just because you have a moral highground doesn't mean that you can simply dimiss war as entirly bad completely offhand. War is by definition costly, dirty, and deadly. But that doesn't mean it can't be an agent of positive change.

 

[Iron Mal]

War is horrific and can be a pointless waste of human life but many of the great achievements of mankind would not have occured if we weren't hellbent on killing each other so much, so to break it down:

Pros- Technological advances, our country grows stronger and more glorious! (for the swarm!/Emperor!/whatever!), overpopulation is solved (even if it's done in a somewhat ruthless manner) and we have plot-lines for films, conspiricy theories and games, baby booms (well, guys get laid so I guess it's a plus for us anyway).

Cons- Countless innocents die as 'collateral damage', international mistrust and hostility as a result of conflict, threat of nuclear war (and thus the destruction of earth and life as we know it) and higher taxes as a result of paying for the 'war effort'.

EDIT: Just in case anyone is curious, I am neither anti or pro war. It happens, we live with it, that is all.

 

[Nukey]

its necessary at times but its best only to use it as a last resort

 

[steeple]

first and foremost, that song is great...
now lets get crackin...

war boosts the economy by giving people in war factories and creating weapons and selling them, but thinking long term, how the hell does that help anyone? all the tax money will go for buying guns and reaserching new ways to kill, instead of helping the poor and educating the youth, and all they will learn is "go there, kill him, bomb that" and that wouldnt help anyone at all. instead of wasting money on wasting people, nations should take that money and give it to reaserch for saving the planet and long term to colonize the moon and planets.

overpopulation is a joke. there are HUGE places where people dont live like deserts for instance, and what i said before about reaserch, how about reaserching ways to settle on the remaining places on the earth instead of killing people to make more room in the space we already have...

finally, every human being is first a human being (dah), and you cant morally say that killing people is ok (even in cases of rapists and murderers.... locking them for a life of solitude would be more effective then realesing them from their life, dont you think?). think about this: every human has a mother and a father, who care for them (most of the times only, sadly), friends, and in the cases of older people, children which they raised and love. every one has a childhood, whishes, things they like or dont, and hopes, and no one has absolutly NO past.

also, when you kill a man, you take away his future from him... think about that.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Sometimes, the end can justify the means. So long as the war is fought for a just reason and it is fought in a just way, I find that it can be a necessary evil.

 

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

Actually, as this current war proves, it does NONE of those things.

What about the Iraq war? It removed Saddam from power. After all...He was committing Genocide on The Kurds ( i think that is how you spell it). You know a tribe found commonly in Northern Iraq. With the gasing and bombing of innocent people...yup no good reason for going to war.

You won't believe me here, but guess who put Saddam in that position? Turns out, the US helped him and even sent him weapons by the truckload, up to the point when he was in charge he got pissed that he wasn't allowed to sell his oil to countries in no other currency than the dollar. After he was the first one to sell oil in another currency, he became the enemy of the state.

 

[bodyklok]

A few quotes that sum up my feelings on this matter.

"Anyone, who truly wants to go to war, has never truly been there before!"
-Larry Reeves

"Morality is contraband in war."
-Mahatma Gandhi


"You know the real meaning of PEACE only if you have been through the war."
- Kosovar

"Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the state.

It is a matter of both life and death, a road to either saftey or ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."
- The man who invented war

 

[Riyka]

like pretty much everything in life it has it's good points and it's bad.
war does stimulate the economy, it brings forward change and often wars are when the most scientific advances are made.
however you have to balance that out with an often horrific amount of death and devastation.

whilst the second world war did stimulate the economy in some ways it also lead to rationing which lead to an entire generation of under fed, mal nutritioned kids...

i think ultimately its a bad thing,
i also think it's sad none of those good things can happen without a war...


on the front of scientific advance though...atomic bomb? whilst a great discovery perhaps better left un known?

 

[steeple]

Actually, as this current war proves, it does NONE of those things.

What about the Iraq war? It removed Saddam from power. After all...He was committing Genocide on The Kurds ( i think that is how you spell it). You know a tribe found commonly in Northern Iraq. With the gasing and bombing of innocent people...yup no good reason for going to war.

You won't believe me here, but guess who put Saddam in that position? Turns out, the US helped him and even sent him weapons by the truckload, up to the point when he was in charge he got pissed that he wasn't allowed to sell his oil to countries in no other currency than the dollar. After he was the first one to sell oil in another currency, he became the enemy of the state.

same thing with usama bin laden and el kaida... the only thing that annoyies me is not the fact that USA gave them the guns, but that they didnt work hard ENOUGH to actually get good relations with them....

 

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

Right. Examples like this show that you can't put an "evil" tag on who attacks one another. War is a complicated construct that has so many ties behind the curtain, you will never really know what is really going on or who is the real troublemaker that wrings his hands, menacingly.