War to end all wars

[mattaman 0]

The only war I'd ever fight in would be a war to end war. People thought ww1 and ww2 were suppose to do this. What do you think it'd look like, life afterward. If you can't see it, don't post, your still in the box

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[freethefly 6]

The war to end all wars will be a full out nuclear war... life afterwards... nothing but cockroaches.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Andrewwhyte 1]

War will never be a path to ending war.

[SpeedRacer 1]

yep, what he said.

wars don't end wars. history teaches that.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Nightingale 0]

It'll be communication and education that ends war, not violence. Violence on a mass scale is usually a product of fear (WWII) or a lack of understanding of another point of view (the crusades).

[mattaman 0]

I love you, best post yet

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[Dolph 0]

Or simply having a desire to have more and the ability to get it.

Not all wars are done ut of ignorance or fear. In fact, a good deal of wars have been started due to personal disagreements between rulers, power grabs, economic or strategic reasons, expansion of power base and what have you. Cleary, there can be rational reasons to go to war. They may not be moral reasons - but rational, well thought out ones nonetheless.

And you may go to war because someone tried to kill your dad. Or because you really can't stand that *idiotic* Swedish king and he just have *got* to be taught a lesson.

We're humans - flock animals. We protect our group and care less about other groups. Been that way for ages.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

It'll be communication and education that ends war

But they'll fight wars over whose education & what communication it takes.

The relationship is not commutative. Relativism tolerates other belief systems, but most other belief systems reject Relativism. You'd have to conquer them first.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Nightingale 0]

Personal disagreements between rulers may spark the conflict, but it's fear and lack of understanding that gets people to follow those leaders into battle. You can't have a war without people willing to fight it.

Hitler could have as many issues with Poland as he wanted to, but he couldn't have a war until he could convice the German people to allow him to lead, and the German army to follow him into battle. He did this by fostering fear of a threat, and advancing the idea that he could do something about that threat. He made people scared and then offered to remove that which he'd taught them to fear.

Pope Innocent III could hate the Ayyubid dynasty as much as he wanted, but until he managed to convince a bunch of knights that they were a threat, the fourth crusade couldn't have happened.

Leaders may have issues with other leaders, but ordinary men seldom have issues with other leaders that are strong enough to make them want to kill. A leader can't have a war until he's convinced his people that there is an enemy, and that is done through fear and lack of understanding.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

It'll be communication and education that ends war

But they'll fight wars over whose education & what communication it takes.

The relationship is not commutative. Relativism tolerates other belief systems, but most other belief systems reject Relativism. You'd have to conquer them first.

But, if you truly make an effort to understand other belief systems, while you may not agree with them, you will understand how others can follow them. Understanding and education, by their nature, bring tolerance. If you truly understand someone, it's difficult to hate them enough to kill them. It's the whole "walk a mile in their moccasins" thing.

The KKK used to be a lot more powerful, and now they're consdered ignorant fools that are to be laughed at rather than listened to, because an understanding has occurred between people of European and African origin, and we've figured out that we really aren't all that different. If the Muslims and Christians had understood why each side wanted to be in Jerusalem, and undersood why the other side considered which sites as sacred, maybe they would've found a way to work it out. If the German people truly understood the Jews, they would have understood that the Jewish people represented no threat, no matter what drivel Hitler was spouting.

When you understand something, even if you disagree, you have an understanding of their perspective. Once that occurs, people spouting hatred and fear have no power.

[mattaman 0]

What I'm asking, is what would a world look like without war, what would we live like without war. How would nations interact. The reason it doesn't exist, is cause people don't think it can, so its not a possibility, so few work, think, act, and demand leadership in that direction. Your god damn people who will get out of a plane, what does out of the box look like on this one, don't be an in the box looser, theres already too many of these, they called woofoo's, cmon

I have a big problem with belief systems, there not reality, they are subjective reality, the problem is when people think their subjective reality is reality, then they push their system on others, as if their reality, or they get offended when others question theirs. Let belief system go, they fuck us up and keep us confined. No one knows reality, just their own, and its not reality.

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

It's the whole "walk a mile in their moccasins" thing.

Yep, that's relativism.

And it's rejected outright by "all or nothing" style belief systems. Fundamentalist belief systems, clearly. And most contemporary belief systems at their root. It's "fear their apostasy" followed by "convert them or kill them". For many of them relativism is apostasy, unquestionably, and even to question why is heresy.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Nightingale 0]

I think that the box looks a lot like a libertarian form of government, as it's the only form of government that would give individuals the flexibility to live lives of their choosing. I think the only way for everyone to get along is if governments butt out and allow people to direct their own lives. It's the only way for everyone to maintain their own philosophies without stepping on the philosophies of others.

In order for us to have world peace, I think the biggest thing people have to accept is that it is not their place to control how others live their lives. When people can live their lives and stop trying to control how others live, then we might have a shot at getting along. People by nature are control freaks. They want to control themselves and their surroundings, including their neighbors. I think realizing that the actions of their neighbors (short of causing others harm) are simply none of their business will go a long way towards getting along. You don't have to like what I do, but you do have to let me do it, just as I may not like your decisions, but I have to accept them because they're yours and not mine. If we can get that philosophy accepted on a world scale, I think things will start to work out.

[billvon 3,031]

>is what would a world look like without war . . .

It would look a lot like Minnesota.

The history of conflict has been a long progression of ever-larger conflicts, up to the world wars. And while that's a bad thing, the flip side is that many of the smaller conflicts simply don't exist any more. When's the last time the Minnesotans tried to kill all the Wisconsonians?

As a race I think we're growing up. It took the threat of annhiliation to get us to back down from all-out nuclear war, but we did it. Sure, there are bumps along the road (we're seeing one now) but I think we are gradually learning better ways to deal with conflict than trying to kill the person you disagree with. (Even if such people are often called cowards.)

[micro 0]

Quote

I think that the box looks a lot like a libertarian form of government, as it's the only form of government that would give individuals the flexibility to live lives of their choosing. I think the only way for everyone to get along is if governments butt out and allow people to direct their own lives. It's the only way for everyone to maintain their own philosophies without stepping on the philosophies of others.

In order for us to have world peace, I think the biggest thing people have to accept is that it is not their place to control how others live their lives. When people can live their lives and stop trying to control how others live, then we might have a shot at getting along. People by nature are control freaks. They want to control themselves and their surroundings, including their neighbors. I think realizing that the actions of their neighbors (short of causing others harm) are simply none of their business will go a long way towards getting along. You don't have to like what I do, but you do have to let me do it, just as I may not like your decisions, but I have to accept them because they're yours and not mine. If we can get that philosophy accepted on a world scale, I think things will start to work out.

that is all well and good... it really is... and contrary to what you or others may think, that is quite similar to my own unifying philosophy. (we just disagree in it's application). the only caveat i would add that you (on some level) disagree with is when one person's philosophy or belief system or actions steming from those beliefs directly and adversely affect the life/well-being of another person. In those instances, society or the govt. or whatever apperatus the "people' establish must step in and speak for those who are oppressed if they cannot speak for themselves.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[nanook 1]

Quote

Personal disagreements between rulers may spark the conflict, but it's fear and lack of understanding that gets people to follow those leaders into battle. You can't have a war without people willing to fight it.

You are right about not able to wage war without people willing to fight it, but fear and lack of understanding is not the only thing that gets people to fight. Believe it or not, there are people who "like" to fight, for instance. There are various reasons, also, why others fight.

Also, saying people need to be fearful and lacking of understanding takes away from the actual fighters themselves. Almost all Admirals and Generals and even mid-level officers and above have the greatest education the U. S. can offer. I have never been to a command that never had at least two or three Harvard graduates or Post-graduates. Or a CO without a Graduate Degree. Same with MIT and other prestigious Universities. You are not able to keep these people in the dark. If anything, they are more able to keep the Pres in the dark than anything else. As far as Enlisted side, there are many of us, including me, that are formally educated and can think for ourselves. But you don't need a B. S. to be able to smell B. S. in the first place.

Just my $tree-fiddy

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[mattaman 0]

Hillarious, I lived in minnesota for a while, like canada, not a whole lot to fight about when people are just living their lives. yes, and not trying to control each other.
Don't you think fear makes people cling to belief systems rather than seek out objective reality, I mean, belief systems are almost directly opposed to reality.
We clearly are set to leave this planet, and I know that scares the hell out of many people cause they are going to really see how belief systems just don't apply when we are forced to look at the bigger picture that exists outside this tiny cobalt blue forest we're so protected by.
What do you folks think of humans more interested in discovery, exploration, and some sixth sense of interconnectivity, like esp, etc. for a future?

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[Nightingale 0]

Sorry if I was unclear... I didn't mean so much the fighters themselves, as the general population backing the war. If a war is so incredibly unpopular that the people don't back it at all, the leader isn't going to stay in power very long. It's up to the leader to convince the population that the war is a good idea, and fear is usually used to do it.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

You can't have a war without people willing to fight it.

Lots of little wars in Africa have been fought by Mercs. Looking at the "contractors" in Iraq, I think the same could be said there. You only need 1 thing for war. Money.

"If you have it, they will come."

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You can't have a war without people willing to fight it.

Lots of little wars in Africa have been fought by Mercs. Looking at the "contractors" in Iraq, I think the same could be said there. You only need 1 thing for war. Money.

"If you have it, they will come."

t

Refer back to the "Hezbollah war crimes" thread for several explanations why the contractor in Iraq are NOT mercs.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

wars don't end wars. history teaches that.

And peace is by no means lasting, infact its more fleeting and precious due to having been more war then peace in the history of man.

Hell, Star Trek is supposed to be a near perfect society of humans in the Federation. No need for money, no hunger, no epidemics, and they still have wars.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Royd 0]

If there were no war everyone would be making love, and overpopulating the already crowded earth.

Then, those who are productive, and are willing to live a life of self sustainance would be harassed by those who think that the world owes them something[think New Orleans].

Once that person starts eating the vegetables that I need to sustain me through the winter, there has to be an accounting.

Whether through voluntary or forced labor of the idle, or elimination of the problem.

We're right back where we started.

[jakee 1,536]

Quote

The history of conflict has been a long progression of ever-larger conflicts, up to the world wars. And while that's a bad thing, the flip side is that many of the smaller conflicts simply don't exist any more.

Only in the US and Europe. That still leaves a very large portion of the world kicking the shit out of each other on an incredibly depressingly regular basis.

To Nightingale: Fear and lack of understanding are very large factors in war but I would argue that there is one even larger - material gain. Living in the modern society that we in the West do it is difficult to understand the mass mentality that leads to this one. Throughout history though (and still in the poorer areas of the world) the simple goal of territory annexation, plunder, rape and pillage is more than ample incentive to start a conflict.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,031]

>Once that person starts eating the vegetables that I need to sustain
>me through the winter, there has to be an accounting.

>Whether through voluntary or forced labor of the idle, or elimination
>of the problem.

Right. And our level of maturity as a people determines whether that solution is "grow more vegetables" or "kill him" (or something in between.)

[nanook 1]

Oh. . .*whew*. That sounds clearer. For a moment your post appeared out of character for you.

Quote

I didn't mean so much the fighters themselves, as the general population backing the war. If a war is so incredibly unpopular that the people don't back it at all, the leader isn't going to stay in power very long. It's up to the leader to convince the population that the war is a good idea, and fear is usually used to do it.

Now, I can agree with this. . .

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln