what can be alternative instead of war?
338502
The leaders of the two countries get together and solv the problem without force.  If hat doesn't work they can duke it out on their own.  If thing opperated like that I bet there would be fewer wars.  It's been a long time since world leaders have been in the battlefield, if this were changed I think war would be less frequent.
1067407
Of course it could.  However I don't think that will ever happen.  War is too convenient.  War is a remarkable catalyst for redistribution of funds.  A select  few in the grand scheme benefit.  War does not help the starving children.  It does however help the munition mfg. and makers of war  implements. War helps lobbyist  and the organizations they lobby for.  It also helps  political enities  who are not above a little ill gotten gold.
191307
The point is that it's better than the alternative.  And as hard as it seems at times....you can change things.
942866
Certainly not.\n\nForce can be used and will be used for everthing, by the people who can use it.\n\nto keep the "global order" we are used to see, there's need of total control over our lifes, and all the violence needed to exterminate de threats against that order.\n\nyou may think by now we must have learnt something from our deads, from our wars, from the results of our own cruelty.\nwell, i can see clearly all people talking about peace has been always, in all countries, killed.\n\nso, the only "effective way" is to have more exterminating power. \nand control. check this up: \nhttp://www.lanacion.com.ar/exterior/nota.asp?nota_id=855347&origen=ranking
513144
War is not the answer.
397568
finite resources plus infinite demand for resources equals conflict.\n\nbut the term "war" can mean many things, so i guess it depends on your definition of war.  if the term "war" is taken to be as broad as the term conflict, then yes--war is inevitable.  if, on the other hand, you mean by the term "war" a very specific type of conflict manifestation at a very specific level of the organic hierarchy, then i would suggest that it is theoretically possible to mediate the infinite conflict in different ways by revising the parameters of the organizational structure.\n\nfor instance:  one of the unspoken but very real reasons for war is population control.  (this isn't to imply malificent despots cackling wickedly as they plan population reduction wars--it has to do with the natural pressure of increased direct competition for resources erupting into violence as systems fail to accomodate basic needs.)  as social systems continue to naturally develop greater control over modes of reproduction (i.e. the progression of sexual mores, marital rituals, birth control and sex education, extending into the near-future developments of genetic engineering, cloning etc.) the state will learn to preclude population surpluses in order to obtain the greater efficiency provided by a more harmonious stability.  (if you find this logic hard to follow, think of it this way:  when the technology to enhance genetic traits such as intelligence, longevity and athleticism  (or provide extra senses and adaptations for tech interface ports) becomes available, the government will control it.  although there will be fierce battles to preserve natural breeding, the vast superiority of genetic engineering as a mode of reproduction ensures its eventual succession (if we survive the terrorist attempts to induce an apocalypse rather than allow the human race to be succeeded, that is).  when test-tube offspring become the norm, a non-violent population control system will likely emerge.)\n\nanyway--this addresses only one cause of war, but i'm sure you can see how the ramifications can extend to all the various aspects of the current institution of warfare.  the conflicts will remain, but what we call "war" (people killing people in organized battles) may very well disappear sooner than you think.  (although it's also possible that the future modes of conflict resolution will be far more ruthless than our primitive wars).\n\ni'll leave you with one more thought to elucidate my point.  thousands of years ago our primordial ancestors (closer to beasts than to men) waged a different type of war--not for land or ideology, but to eat or be eaten. their primitive minds were probably incapable of conceiving of a state of affairs where the sabre tooth was not a fierce and cunning enemy, where a perpetual vigil for a tactical battle to achieve a visceral kill would not be a constant and necessary aspect of the daily lives of their children.  and yet, with remarkably few exceptions, this war has long since ended.  there is no predator that regularly hunts human prey, and only an infinitesimally small percentage of the food eaten by humans in the modern world is hunted in the wild.  the war has ended.  and yet the conflict remains.  in order to survive humans must eat.  in order to be eaten, the food must die.  only now, this conflict is resolved through a peculiar social contract.  we breed livestock and crops whose sole purpose of existence is to feed us.  we kill them, but it can't really be called war. they offer no real resistance, and they only reason they were given their strange lives in the first place was to be eaten.  i used the term "social contract," and indeed, that's what it is.  civilization authorizes their birth on the condition that they be an easy (and delicious) food source for humans.  individuals that are especially docile or delectable succeed in reproduction, and inefficient
76221
War?  Don't you mean Olympics?
1171014
Yes this is really a no win for us. What do we hope to gain from the war we are in. A wise man once said that "War must be avoided in all circumstances". If I get best answer you will know who said that.
188333
How can we make peace permanent instead of a space between wars?
380024
War is usually about the most wanted commodity.  The most important commodity I can think of is Water.  So if I had the resources and the evil nature, I would go after controlling all the water supply world wide.  This is the ultimate power ... but I'd need to hire real smart scientists to figure out how to separate the people from my new water supply that only I control.
1005204
its a conflict in terms i guess. a oxymoronic idea but isnt all war moronic anyhow
987060
No, because we definitely wouldn't want peace because there would be no progress and nothing to struggle for. What we are really looking for is a world with non-violence where we solve our conflicts and disputes diplomatically without going to war. That is a world in which there is till conflict but it is never violent and the opposite of peace is not war it is creation! It is completely possible to be non-violent, but to always agree on everything that would make us all the same and that kills diversity. To address the question of human nature. Humans are not inherently hateful, violent, or mean that's what we have been taught in our culture, there have been cultures in which this was not the case it merely requires some thoughtful research into ancient societies. Human nature is not fixed we are not bron a certain way it is mutable and we are programmed by our culture to behave in certain ways deemed culturally appropriate. The argument that humans are by nature violent has no real grounds because it will always be biased by a cultural viewpoint that see's violence as inevitable (such as ours here in the U.S.) Therefore we will always assume all humans are violent even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Humans are very capable of loving one another we see it happen all the time if we dain to look beneath the surface of things. We have had political struggles that have challenged racism, homophobia, sexism and so on all of which stem from a consciousness of love. I fully assert that humans are extremely loving creatures and that we can develop that side of our "nature".
1163230
war is always kind of bad, but thats just its nature.  war also dramatically pushes the technological envelope.  (computers, planes, ships, space shuttles, radios, cars, etc, are as advanced as they are because of the wars people fight)\n\nmost people despise war.  i would much rather use diplomacy to solve international problems, but unfortunately sometimes guns and bombs are the only solution, and if the situation calls for it, than i would use war.
1023882
How about a job instead?
339086
war is never a good option to ending any dispute.  defense of those you love is done out of necessity but going out of your way to kill another human being because you disagree with their ideas or do not like the way they look...i don't know.  that just sounds...i don't know...evil.
355635
If you do not. Then think of what the alternative may be.
531084
You can't, because conflict is sometimes a positive force.  Look at the revolutionary war.