WARS...why daddy?

[lifedeath]

I don't get it sometimes..i really don't...

Thoughout the history there have been hundrend of different wars...

in 90% of them the people are againsts it...if not from the start...well, when the wars were happening...

In most of the cases the persons who keep the wars going ,with many different means, are the people with power at that time...

I just don't get how...

let's say in a 1000 population

the 10 people can destroy the rest?

[Rorschach]

/me hugs ld
I'm going to have to add your name to Vincent's in my sig I think

[ReggarBlane]

It would be nice if we got to vote on every issue that came to the table in our government... except that the need for the government would no longer exist and nothing would ever get done.

Here in the USA, we elect people to make government decisions in our stead since having a nation-wide popular vote on everything in a nation of this size is highly inefficient.

In that regard, yes. We give quite a bit of power to the people who work for us. (In some cases, I feel there may be a bit too much power, but that is just personal opinion.)

[Shyknight]

Wars happen because people in power want more power, or because there is a shortage of resources, or somebody insulted somebody's mother. Sometimes there is no way to compromise... or sometimes the leaders simply *won't* compromise because they are too proud. Many wars have been fought for 'glory' and 'honor'. I am of the opinion that wars serve no useful purpose except to prevent future wars. Which is ironic.

If I had my way, disputes between nations would not be settled with wars but with duels. Each nation would have a champion, and they would bet land/resources/trade on their champions so that each of them has something to gain if they win. It serves the same purpose of a war in both function and symbolism, but there is only one casualty. I would call this 'bloody diplomacy' only to be used when compromise cannot be reached.

[Azurain]

*blinks* OT: nice sig Rorschach... that's quite possibly my favorite song of all time.

On topic, war is about power. Duels would settle nothing, as the loser wouldn't be inclined to give up its losses without exerting its actual power to defend them (unless some global agency enforced the outcome of duels with sanctions and/or war itself).

In any case, due to propoganda and such most wars involve great support from the general populace. There are exceptions (serfdom, or the Vietnam war, for instance), but generally people are willing to fight for a cause, and both sides of a war usually have some sort of cause. So a large part of the problem is all those 'upstanding citizens' who are willing to fight for their country. If neither side had anyone or many people willing to commit acts of violence for a cause, then wars would either be very limited or nonexistent.

Of course, this is just my explanation of war, not an argument for it... I think any act of unnecessary violence is stupid and immature, and will usually result in a violent chain of effects that most never forsee.

-- Chris

[confusedcious]

Don't flame me for this

But I think that this goes hand in hand with the fact that pure communism/socialism whatever could work really well if people weren't corrupted and greedy.

[Azurain]

Just about every system of government could work really well if people weren't corrupt* and greedy. : )

[Chubs Of Dºº/v\]

[quote="confusedcious";p="311794"]Don't flame me for this

But I think that this goes hand in hand with the fact that pure communism/socialism whatever could work really well if people weren't corrupted and greedy.[/quote]

Ok, give me reasons why it would work then. I'm interested but I doubt you have any merit.

[confusedcious]

Well, the pure communism idea is that everything is owned by everyone, and this means that no person can horde everything, and there is no poverty. Doesn't that sound good? The only real issue with it is the centrally planned thing, but that could be fixed with decentralisation.

I am happy how I am living, but there are places it could work, just so long as those in power to decide choose to use their resources to look after the people instead of build weapons.

Savvy?

[Chubs Of Dºº/v\]

Very good, I understand that. I was asking because I was always led to believe that pure communism would fail on the grounds that when people are put into that stable of a work environment that motivation and self worth go into the toiltet.

But I get your point.

[confusedcious]

Well, if they did it wisely then they would use people based on their skills/interests.
And motivation could be an issue, but if they knew that if *everyone* worked harder that the benefits would come.

But yes, that is one of the few real issues

[Ragnarok7331]

Don't get me started on socialism... I'll get verrrryyyy ot. We could argue that in an appropriate thread. Lets just say that I'm completely and utterly against the idea, along with the fact that humanity is not compatible with socialism. But back to the main topic: wars do have some good impacts, namely the technologies that are developed for warfare. The internet was created and used by the military for years before the public started using it. That's just one example of the dozens of new technologies that war directly or indirectly led to. Wars, and conflict in general, make reasons for people to invent, a motivation to strive to a higher level. (Note: I'm not defending the concept of warfare, but you have to look at all sides of the issue. )

[mrchapel]

[quote="lifedeath";p="311509"]
let's say in a 1000 population

the 10 people can destroy the rest?[/quote]

Long Island had some of the most expencive energy in the country until California f@cked up big time.

Why?

A group of activists closed down the safest nuclear power plant ever built. They consisted of much less than 10% of the population.

Also, I think that your statement is kind of the basis of Guerrilla Warfare (sp?) which has proved effective in the past. (especially in Magic where you can deal 4 damage to a creature or player for 0 mana if your opponent screws up)

[rawkeye]

as always, Nuremberg has the answers!

Goering: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament, or a Communist dictatorship...

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

THOSE KOOKY NAZIS!

[YH]

Tribes fighting other tribes. Why? Because they're tribes.