War Makes Sense ...in a very cruel way...

[githoko 0]

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.Ignorance is strength.All these quotes of yours have one thing in common. The notion of the survival of the fittest (and paranoid). In war the fittest get to exercise their impulse to domination and their sense of peace comes thence. Freedom can only be slavery for those who do not have a will of their own. Whose individualy or sense of personal identity and responsibility real or potential is so low that they need other people to govern a life they themselves cannot or have not the confidence to govern. Ignorance is strength. From my own personal experience the strength of ignorance comes mainly from it blocking out information that will threaten the individual's percieved safety: be it in the things by which he esteems himselfs, or the things that would otherwise threaten his physical well being. In any case the principle is that it removes threats simple by ignoring them, pretending they are not there. Allowing the fool to tread along. Reminds me of the quote 'For fools go where angels dare not tread.'.In the first two instances of what I think summarises your true attitude, as opposed to the very informative and enlightening explanation of the well known fact that war pays. True as well that war pays the few individuals who at the expense of the lives of many, which I suppose would be all good and well for them if they existed completely independently of the other people. But the fact that they have to involve the others in they endevours is proof of the contrary. And therein lies my arguement.The achievements of any given individual is as you said relative; and,I say, also absolute. Thus if we propose some abstract measure of human achievement. Let us suppose the world will end in 1000 year and at the period some alien race will find a means of reconstructing our entire history and employ the same criteria for achievement that we do. Let us also assume that civilization continues to progress the way it has done so far. Thus we will have a standard of highest achievement in the last year of the worlds existance and the stone age as the lowest. This will be our abstract absolute measure.The individuals of whom you speak however measure their achievement relative to the individuals in their era. This is a valid measure as there is no other information that they have. It is however self-defeating since it is obvious that the era limits the absolute achievement that any particular individual can have. I mean imagine a stone age man being able to master an army ( to use your theme) of more that a hundred men. He would have to cover a probable area of 100km squared to find them whilst avoiding lions and cheetas in the process. You, hell you could get some crazy war internet group to come together from the basement of your mothers house. Imagine somebody in 1989 trying to buy the exact book that he wanted from America,England or Russia or wherever (I'm in Africa) from the a bookshop there. Completely impossible without thousands of spent on telephone calls and letters to bookshops and libraries and publishing houses. Today. Go to your room. Start your computer. Type https://www.amazon.com/. You're done.It is, of course,obvious what the commercial advantages I could get from being the only one able to do this. This exclusive access to information would not but give me a business advantage. Would it then be advisable for me to go around putting viruses on all computers in my country so that they do not have the internet and I am the only one who has it and can get this advantage then.In the short term it probably would be.But considere the fact that all my endevours after that will require the cooperation of other of my countrymen. They however will lack the sophistication necessary to be productive in the capacities for which I will seek to engage them. The result then. I will be forced to allow two of them the access that I have, wait for a while while they get up to speed. The situation will then repeat itself as I reach the next the milestone in my progress; which will require that I then include a couple more.This I think will sufficiently demonstrate my point.Simply by virtue of the limitation that an individual has placed upon him by nature he needs to engage competent individuals in order to reach higher levels of achievement.Your notion that by removing the abilities of other in order to attain greater relative achievement is I believe at the sacrifice of absolute achievement according to the measure we have proposed. In my example commercial people interested in gaining capitalistic advantage will in actual fact not even be prepared to invest in my country, realising what happens when progress is introduced there. In an case more directly pertinant to your discourse is the socio-economic problems of Africa. The dictators in my continent, if not in my country, I believe have had the same notions that you have. The result is lack of investment and economic growth which I think at least within the context of their own country limits what they can buy thus essentially limiting the value of their acquired wealth. And as you move down the hierarchy it the truer that becomes.I cannot, (though he is not a warring dictator) imagine Mogabe's son(He is president of a country called Zimbabwe) saying how his grandson met a nice girl at this exclusive club while he was on holiday roaming around with his friends. Or be bought this nice Lamborghini at a dealer where he was taking the holiday.By degenerating your enviroment you also bring degeneration to your own self, sentimentality aside. Financial and otherwise.

[Forbez 0]

You are missing quite alot of other reason on why war is good, in a bad way.* Resources, the invading country doesnt take land no more. They take resources. Most recent account would be America in Iraq.* A since of money well spent, the public feels as though their tax money is not going to waste. If they are at war, the money is helping the cause.* Loans, Advanced warfared countrys "loan" under devolped coutrys their weapons. But it is impossible to give back all the bullets, weapons and vechiles untouched. So, it makes the loaning coutry look good, and the other coutry having to pay them back. Using the word "loan" makes it sounds more caring.* Bring back the economy, the Government pay the public to build weapons. Which they pay taxes with. Then these weapons are to use for war, where they force other countrys to pay or give them something in return. A good example would be Germany, in WW2. Hitler brought back germany to it's feet. Everyone had jobs again, and Germany grow in size and wealth.Of course there are plenty more, but those are the most effective.

[richierich1m 0]

War never makes sense,if you are saying that we loose a lot of money during wars than how are you saying that war makes sense.Its true that highly develop countries make some weapons which when get obsolete they sell those to other less developed countries, but i feel why do they such a thing because this ultimately creates a lot of problems like when a underdevelop countries get good weapons even if its obsolete according to the develop countries ,these weapons could be used by them to target other countries which don't have those weapons which may lead to furthur wars in the world,i think almost everyone in the world wants war to stop and peace to be resided in the entire world but this is generally not the case because all countries are following rules like if someone kidnapps our countries two soldiers then my country soldiers will kill 20,000 civilians and military members of that countries. every country feels that i have to kill more soldiers of the other countries so i can really satisfy the country's ego.its like for example if someone kills my two soldiers than i will kill their 100 soldiers and in the proccess make my 50 soldiers loose life, so to take a revenge of two soldiers i had to kill my 50 soldiers Now tell me does this makes sense?even if we refer to the current war of America and Iraq there was no even remotely acceptable reason for the America to attack on iraq ,was their any? America never cared how saddam ruled his country what they cared was how much oil wells could they capture and how much money they could swallow down their throat . it was bush who killed 100 times more people than saddam ever killed ,he killed the americans as well as the iraqi's which led to a lot of people in the death in the end of the war.genuinely i liked america because of its ever growing economy and innovations but after such things i don't think the american goverment has any credibility left atleast in my eyes,war never results in a piece it will result in more violence ,do you think that if american goverment keeps doing the same things over and over again then i don't think there would be anyway terrorist would stop them to destroy a world trade center(currently in construction) or the blue empire,or i feel leave the terrorists aside the american people will itself not allow such a giverment which wastes a lot of goverment tax mony to make wars.More than three thousand soldiers were killed in iraq wasn't that a great loss bcoz the no. of people killed in 9/11 were less than the total killed in the war to be specific killed by bush.Even after that would you say that the war makes sense,may be you need to think again for that.Recently i heard about a movie that released in the states was that bush is killed by someone and no united states security sgencies are able to find who killed bush.The vice president becomes the president and launches the attack on korea saying it is a korean who killed bush (real footages of bush are used in the film) many wars starts and obviously the nunber of soldiers keep dying a lot of civilians of other countries die and this thing simply continues and at the end they find that bush was killed by none other than a soldier david's father. and it was only for economical reasons that the american goverment attacked korea.does war makes sense now,what i don't like about the social thinking in the people not only america but almost all the countries of the world that a human life has no value if killed by a person of your country but when a person of your country is killed you make a big thing out of it and all countries do the same not any in particualr .I read one of the articles of steve pavlina where he said that people are stuck in such a social mindset that if a soldier of your country is killed you feel aaa what a loss may god give blessing to them , but if a soldier of your own country kills some soldier of other country what you feel is wow he is so brave ,long live the bravo! Thats how human lives are treated do you think yet that war makes sense.many people say they beleive in god and in other hand they say they are patriotic ,please remember this onc e and for all ,you cannot be a beleiver of god if you are patriotic . when you say you are patriotic you are favouring one type of people over the other while you forget the concept that it was god who created everyone .Even bush and Even Osama. everyone was created by god War never made a sense and it never will its a very big misconception if you think that war makes sense ,make your thinking clear and you'll know it never makes sense to kill .

[Matrixdudej 0]

war in certain aspects does make sense but not over all the aspects consider 9/11 yes i think that because of what had happened on 9/11 that war was justified however i was not old enough to understand the situation at the time i think i was in 5th grade?but now i look back on it and i would justify it they caused many deaths both on the planes and because of the crash thats why i would justify us starting a war with them however i dont justify their acctions but if there is enough reason i bilieve yes war may be the answer