war is inevitable, do you agree? and why?
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
251358
no it is not justified..the only reson we ewnt to war in the first place was for oil. and i think everyone knows that. This is wat war is all about, thorughout history form ww1 war was about natural resources liek oil. defiantely not justified
879478
Not likely. The U.S has made a bad thing worse. Bush is a war-monger, and as long as he's in power, war is inevitable.
754596
war is not new.. and neither is the nazi idea of war.  the thirst for power will certainly always remain in the human mindset, and we will always have a need to keep that in check.
62054
maybe if the war keps going on!!!  PEACE ON EARTH!!!
775804
I think we should do what that general suggests.  There has never been a war, in which a force that went and lived up to laws of morality, and the other side did not, and the first force, winning.  Sometimes, you just have to be cruel to win.  I think what this general says is a great idea (I know it sounds kind of sick)  Just kill the people that decide to ruin other's lives, I see no wrong in that.
623477
In no way war is life.We should take all the available step to avoid any sort of war.b'cozwar is cause of immense destruction.But when war becomes inevitable then we should not  take a back seat and come up to protect our right.
256453
no, but it should be. the fastest way to end the war would be to make everyone take part in it.
503708
No. All wars have a root cause of economics and then you go from there. Money and emotions run the world.
1084377
By definition if a war is "never-ending" then it can't possibly be won.  Or lost for that matter.  Simple logic dictates this conclusion.
902113
Absolutely and inequitably yes.  History continues to prove this, even when were were less people on the earth; the more people, the more demand for land, resources, power, etc.  There will always be war, unless we had one all powerful world dictatorship type of government, and even then civil wars would inevitably break out to reinstate liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Glorious Leader of the one government, and one subscribed way of thinking.
820793
War is a last course of action to achieve a common goal after exhausting all other methods of negotiation, compromise, and/or conciliation. \n\nThere are those who think war is never an option because no one every truly wins, but I gave you a reason for it. :)
635172
Well, I guess in a way if youre fighting war than that means youre starting a war against war, which means you are already contradicting yourself. The point im trying to make is it doesnt really matter what context it is in, it takes a war to start yet another.\n\nI applaud you for asking this question, but I am a lil confused as to why you did it since your ideology seems so thrown together and a little clumsy.\n\nI dont believe evil has a face. Its only a word we've constructed to seperate each other. But even if it did, are you saying that war exists because of "evil"? If thats true, than why do you feel that saying "war is wrong" is any different than saying that it is necessary?\n\nO i get it, we call that atitude nihilism - a belief that there is no point in caring because to care would mean that you think it is possible to change. But dont you think that in already saying it is impossible to change than you have already disqualified yourself from ever changing anything in the first place? \nDoesnt that whole idea go back to the "takes a war to start one" thing?
451961
The arguments against a war are formidable.    Those who say we shouldn't send our boys (and girls) to some far off land to die are right.  Those who say war will increase Middle East violence are right. Those who say war is unthinkable are right.\n\nMilitary strikes, even limited ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and the world.\n\nAll the arguments are fearful and powerful. But taken together, squared, then cubed, they don't come close to matching the case to stop a rogue leader from acquiring nuclear power...especially one espousing apocolyptical Islamic fundalmentalism.\n\nIf Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold event up there with the coming of Hitler and the Bolshevik Revolution.\n\nAm i ready for another war?  Not really, but i guess we must steel ourselves for the UNTHINKABLE NECESSITY.
11700
of course, it is only a matter of time before we find something to fight about on a world war level.  WWIII is inevitable, just like the sun rising, poverty, finding out Santa isn't real, and Google becoming the next big monopoly.
258718
I think war is a very important part of our lives and especially the economy. The only reason for patriotism and the desire for peace comes from war, hate, and killing. The Second World War jolted America from the Great Depression of the 30's to the industrial wonders of the 40's and 50's. If there was no war, there would be no democracy because arguing is a verbal war, and pits brothers against one another. Some say the only way to have complete world peace is to be run under either a communist government or monarchy. But others would then get restless and brew up another war. As long as there is life, there can be no such thing as world peace, it is in all creatures nature to fight others either different or similar for survival and power. So there is really no reason for all the fuss about world peace. It isn't going to happen until all life is destoyed. The term pacifist then, according to nature, means "fool bent of the destucrtion of all life". Not exactly what they profess, is it?
764215
Violence as a solution to any problem should only be a last resort. In a perfect world there would be no war, but we do not live in a perfect world. The United States cannot police the whole world it is just unworkable and unrealistic. The problem in the way we choose our fights. Wars we engage in are the ones where we perceive a vital national interest rather than a humanitarian one. Iraq is a good example. While there is a humanitarian side of the conflict, we would not be there if the country did not possess a large oil supply. Oil is central to the US economy and therefore represents a vital national interest. Compare this with Dafur. A terrible genocide is occurring there, but honestly speaking they have nothing we want. The optimum world military situation would be one where nations acted together against tyrants, but unfortunately political realities do not allow for this.