Can War be Stopped?

Huh? How?

Okay, how?

You can say most anything, TT, but explaining it is something else.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how are they secured? Does the losing side say "okay you're there now we give in?"

Because wars are fought over ideoloogies and territory...

Study warfare - the idea is to reduce casualties as far as possible (admittedly mainly your own...). Bombs etc are to destroy infrastructures and buildings.

The idea of having so many was so that the enemy wouldn't fight because of mutually assured destruction. They weren't intended to be used - just a threatened use.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you talking about?
People spend billions of dollars on the health and beauty industry every year.
They pump themselves full of pills and herbs.
They do everything in their power to extend their lives.
Ask almost anyone about technological advances, and they will almost invariably point to the longer lifespan we have now.
Look at the size of the pharmaceutical industry.
They flock to religions that promise them eternal life.
People are terribly afraid of death and are doing all they can to avoid it.

Disagree that these are the two advantages humans have, or disagree that this is the cause of xenophobia?
People care about those they know - those they have a connection with - the further you get from teh family circle, the less they care about you.
If their lives are controlled by fear and mistrust - xenophobia is the natural result.

I agree, they are - that doesn't mean it is human nature.
It is culture that causes this.
We are not born that way - children are trusting and fearless by nature - we are made that way.
If it is a result of nature, rather than nurture, it can be fixed.
I know it can be fixed, because, as I said, I am completely free of fear, and I am not the only one.

Of course because of irrational reactions to emotions, taht's my whole point.
Supporting war is an irrational reaction to fear.
This is where the propaganda comes in.
If you don't believe that governments and other groups utilize propaganda, and don't believe it works, I can't see that we anything further to discuss about this particular topic.

Of course some people do, that veast majority of people do not, however.
Those who do are mostly sick or scared (and they are the minority by far).
Most who support war do so because they are scared, and want the government to protect them, and numbers (100,000 dead) mean notthing to them because they don't know them personally - they are not part of their community - they are the "enemy" - blind xenophobia.

You have an incorrect view of anarchy.
Most anarchists are pacifists, and they know that pascifism is the only wat anarchy will be successful.

I grew up under the shadow of the Cold War and there were three main types of people...
Those who constatnly feared that a nuclear bomb was going to strike any given day.
Those who war "Kill a Commie for Mommy" T-shirts (yes, that was an actual, and very popular shirt).
Those who ignored thw world for their little corner.

The ones who are afriad of their "leaders" do not support the "war".
The ones who do, out right admit they are scared - the number one reason Bush was re-elected was because people felt he would protect them from the terrorists better than Kerry would.

People most certainly did fear them,and what they (and their followers) were accomplishing.

I'm not forgetting that - I think you may be forgetting to attempt to discern WHY groups hate other groups.

And where does this hate come from?

I wouldn't.
Most would.
It's a fact that MANY people think the main job of the government is to protect them from those who are out to do them harm (and I agree - I just think government should be thought of on a more local, personal level, but that's another discussion entirely).

Yes they are.
That is not nature, however, it is nurture.

Exactly!!!

It sees to me we agree more than you think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good grief. Yes you can. They are opposites. DUH!
There is no point in going into a petty fit discussing the level/degree of functionality of X.
It is part of the English language to discuss the qualities as absolutes regarless of relativities. No big deal.

You speak about war as if it is not war.
Yes I agree you do not need to do things. But it is these things that make it war. If we did not do these things, how can we call it war?

I shall rephrase my question so you do not misinterpret it:
Are you asserting that klling huge amounts of people to achieve land/control/etc is a functional aspect of humankind, and not a disfunctional aspect of humankind? Do you assert that its functional purpose is population control?

 

Ye Doth debate needlessly.

I thought saying "No" was decisive enough. War cannot be stopped, it's blatantly obvious unless you want to apply some unrealistic solution.

 

Who are you talking about? Have you even read this thread and all the points about how utterly false and unrealistic it is to purport that war cannot be stopped?

 

I was referring to those apparently suggesting war CAN be stopped. If not, what the mother loving gods are you two debating about? I didn't feel like reading 16 pages of worthless content.

 

If war is a form of ignorance, and stopping war is a dream of uncertain outcome, then stopping all forms of ignorance is also a dream of uncertain outcome -- possibly explaining ignorants' attraction to this fertile ground of certain certitude from which to war against non-subscribing ignorants.

 

No proof that war cannot be stopped. No problem. Nobody is asking for proof of anything. How about the absence of even any sort of decent support for the (thus far) baseless idea that war cannot be stopped.

 

How to stop a war: win.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not in the case of USA. We make sure ware perpetuates by creating fake wars.
Try talking to Iraq Veterans. Or type iraq veterans into google, and you will see lots of examples.

 

Sooo...you've been debating over a matter that's already concluded?

 

If the war is about control, then you don't need to kill lots of people to achieve that. If the war is about power then you don't need to kill lots of people to take power. ...

Power comes from engineering, and scale, and organization. Power also comes from military might, but 99% of the time it does not take violence to achieve power. Often, when a person is a bit too violent they can't hold power as long as they would have.

Take Nero for example, or Caligula, people who had power but went completely insane and abused it to the point where they couldnt maintain it. This is often the reason most civilizations fail, if a civilization becomes preoccupied with war for wars sake, and not for some rational or strategic purpose, the end result is a warrior civilization, and most if not all warrior civilizations collapse.

The reason warrior civilizations collapse is because all the builders get violently killed during the course of war, and theres no one left from which to build up the civilization again. The civilization is not built by the warrior class, it's built by the intellectuals.

The warrior class defends civilizations from other warriors, but it does not build the civilization. It's basically proven that extreme violence is not needed anymore. There are no other superpowers, the USA basically rules planet earth. The resources on planet earth will be fought over of course, and this will be the source of new wars as the elite fight the elite over the remaining resources.

However, those kinds of wars don't have to involve millions of people and have hundreds of thousands of casualties. Covert wars are more efficient and less bloody. The covert war for resources would go on completely behind the scenes and none of us would know it's happening except for the thousands of people actually involved in the fighting.

However when a war becomes widened to the point where the entire country, or countries, or the whole world is involved, thats too much. I'm saying that in this age, we will still have conflicts, but I don't see why we'd ever have anything to gain by using nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or any of these other weapons of mass destruction.

What I'm saying is, we need to move into the age of non-leathal weapons. We need to start developing weapons which don't kill or injure, but which simply get the job done.

You can get the job done, non-lethally. So why do we continue to develop weapons which are not just lethal, but super lethal? What is the point of developing nukes?

The only rational reason to develop a nuclear weapon is to scare smaller nations who don't have nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon if used, could trigger every country on earth which has a nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction to use theirs either to attack you, or to attack their enemies.

So tell me, whats wrong with non-lethal weapons?
Whats wrong with trying to minimize conflicts, and when fighting conflicts, fight them in the most efficient, pain free and least lethal way?

Sure there will still be wars, and there will still be deaths, but wars will be much quicker, and there will be a lot less deaths. Just think of it this way, if society decided to declare a war on crime, we'd be in a state of constant war, forever, as theres an endless amount of criminals. If the police decided to simply shoot all criminals on the spot, this would create a wider war, as the families of these criminals could turn against the police and it could create even more criminals.

However, if the police have all the technology they need, to detect, prevent, and capture criminals with non-lethal weapons, sure criminals might be injured, but they'll live, and their families will not be as harmed.

 

So, you haven't read any of the past 16 pages at all, but are convinced that those who do not agree with you are dead wrong (it's "blatantly obvious").
In other words this discussion was over before it was even started.
Why did you bother posting in the thread at all, in that case, since you obviously have absolutely no interest in discussing this?
Do you often summarily discount the arguments of those who disagree with you without even bothering to find out what those arguments are?
Did you expect everyone who disagrees with you to bow to you upon hearing your perfect reasoning, "Duh, it's obvious"?
Did you expect all to sit at your feet and beg to be taught in the ways of the world and hearts of men, Oh Wise One?

Please stop wasting my time and yours.

 

Naturally. Normally I concede that there is some small possibility that someone will contrive some mysterious idea that proves at least part of an opinion correct.

This is not one of those cases. I need not look through 16 pages to know what's going on. I'm fairly certain the arguments used by any opposition are the same I've heard or thought of before.

I mean, seriously. Think about it. Stopping war entirely? Hahahaha. No. Maybe only if you're a hippie that is so delusional you think the world is made of hugs and candies.

Bingo. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

I thought that was "blatantly obvious". To ask why people are discussing such a simple subject. It's very easy to figure out even without a history in psychology that stopping all war is improbable and highly unrealistic.

So then I asked why you continue to discuss it. If there are opposition that claims war can be stopped, let them. It's like trying to talk a 3 year old out of believing the taller glass holds more then a wider glass (despite the fact they hold the same amount of water). Debating it is pointless.

No, not often. Only when I expect people to hold more intelligence then an infant. To discern reality from fictitious ideas.

No, since not many people care to hear perfect reasoning.

Hmm, no. I expected them to grovel at my feet. Face down, etc. You know.

I also kind of expected them to not be so moronic they'd waste time debating topics that is so easily settled as to point to human history.

I had originally intended just to leave one or two posts, but you saw fit to bitch and moan because I past preemptive judgment upon another groups ideas. So we can safely say that this entire fiasco is your fault.

I pass preemptive judgment upon this particular group of people, because it's going to be a dead "DURR, it can't be stopped" for most anyone. Unless you wish to give some unrealistic solution (which I excluded in my previous post).

So perhaps, one_raven, if you're done whining like a baby who lost his balloon, you'd do well to stop pointing fingers at me. My rationality behind ignoring most of the posts is fairly sound, and you've not exactly given me any reason to read them before passing judgment.
Aside from, you know, ad-homing me continually just because I'm intelligent enough to know how bad the opposition is going to be. Foresight. Use it. Saves typing.

 

"Rationality"?
It's not "rationality" it is simple attempted justification of your selective ignorance.
Covering your ears & eyes and stating "You're wrong and stupid, so I'm not going to listen to you" is not "rationality".

Yet you call me childish.

 

*groan* Talk about putting words into ones mouth. Go and gnaw at someone else's ankles.

 

Debting? You are obviously new to the internet. This is not a debate forum. It is a discussion forum.
You probably don't kow the difference between a discussion and a debate.

 

TT i get what your saying about the non lethal weapons, but they will be expensive to opperate, and alot fo rebel factions wont be able to afford them and most likely wont want to use them.

i know a fair amount about war and fighting its kind of my thing. and i know that if you kill somebody its not as effective on the battlefield as injuring somebody and taking them out of action in modern times.

say you kill 1 guy it only takes 1 guy out of action , and maybe somebody to take his dog tags and take his body back afterwards in a vehicle. now say you shoot a guy a few times and just take him out of action but leave him alive, he then needs cover fire and support from his comrads to ensure his safety, he then needs a medic to come and see to him, and most likely he will need 2 guys to take him away on a stretcher into safe cover,

now say you take 20 guys out of action in a controlled area on the battlefield, that is going to take up alot of peoples time and effort to ensure they stay alive and get treated. so in some ways its better to take people out of action without killing them, but just make sure they are fucked up enough so they cant fight for a long time,


peace.

 

No, you're using faulty logic. Those doctors and medics, the hospitals, etc are already in place and operational. If a man is wounded, he's taken out of the fight ...one man lost to the battle. But that's all, because all of the other people were there already to attend to his wounds.

That logic that you used is as old as ...well, very old. It actually worked in World War II because the hospitals, care stations were all far behind the lines. Since then, medical facilities have only been a quick helicopter ride away with doctors and nurses waiting for the wounded.

Thus, one wounded soldier = one man out of the battle. One soldier killed = one man out of the battle.

Baron Max