Wars

[itachiuchiha85]

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end.

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare.

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way?

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.)

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecesors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genious or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, i know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... . Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb".

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldnt that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war.

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price.



What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

[mangagirl]

good thread man...u are right

[Gamabunta]

Originally Posted by itachiuchiha85

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end.

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare.

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way?

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.)

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecesors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genious or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, i know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... . Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb".

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldnt that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war.

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price.



What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

I am against wars, but I understand that they are a fact of life. Humanity will always be at conflict with ourselves, as long as we don't have immediate access to unlimited resources.

And chilvary in wars has always been an illusion. Sure there are some exceptions but for the most part it was always inexistant and simply a code of words not actions. There is no such thing as modern chilvary as total war, is in the end the most honorable thing to do, when trying to conserve lives and property.

[itachiuchiha85]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

I am against wars, but I understand that they are a fact of life. Humanity will always be at conflict with ourselves, as long as we don't have immediate access to unlimited resources.

And chilvary in wars has always been an illusion. Sure there are some exceptions but for the most part it was always inexistant and simply a code of words not actions. There is no such thing as modern chilvary as total war, is in the end the most honorable thing to do, when trying to conserve lives and property.

I didnt get that, what do you mean? (its saturday i am slow today haha.)

I know there is no such thing as chivalry in wars, but chivalry (in my eyes) would be sending a diplomat/emissary to your enemies palace and ask him nicely to surrender. Also chivalry could be seen too when army's would invade another empire, some tho rare, would spare the children. When jerusalem fell back to the hands of the "infidels" they let them go as long as they surrendered their weapons. I am not talking about this "well i punch you now you punch me" but more of a "well here is my army, where is yours?" even if one army is smaller then the other one they still had the chance to defend themselves if they chose to. I hate the whole "boom you are gone" part of war.

[R.K.]

I am not anti war, but I am not pro war. I have no problems with the way wars are fought right now, as long as we don't nuke each other. If you are pro war, go join the army.

[Sage Of Six Paths]

Spoiler:

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end. Speaking can also be a means to advance if both sides are willing to do so. War evolves from anger, something which all human beings experience. It is natural to want to fight someone, that doesn't make it any better than talking to them.

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. But without reason. Simply to gain power. And how did that advance society today? I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. That was a brutal slaughter. With totally unfair sides. A massacre cannot even be compared to a war, as you said. But it would have been batter if they all died in a war, rather than outside of one? But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare. But did that really accomplish anything in terms of technological advancement or prosperity? True that riches were gained, and that riches did lead lands to prosper. But that is survival of the fittest. The way of animals. Human beings have been gifted with the ability to extend and evolve beyond that point, where communication through words in possible. Actions speak louder then words, but are they too loud?

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. A privilage to be in an unjust cause. Being in a war is nothing bad. But starting one is what is wrong. Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way? Make them proud? Dying would make them proud. To die on the battlefield. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. But the idea of it is still wrong. Is having someone be proud of you worth all of the pain they get if you die? War is horrible because it takes away and gives nothing but empty power back. True happiness can never be gained from war.

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Because humans have evolved into cowards. War was never right. Using guns hasn't changed anything. Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.) I see your point. I just do not agree with it. Such wars were mainly fought for empty power. Participating in the war is what was considered right. But going to war was never even touched upon. The act of war within itself is just plain wrong.

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecessors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. Honor in battle does not, by any means, amke war the right thing to do. I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genius or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, I know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. War should not have changed. But it changed because people refused to stop war. Everyone always had to get the upper hand. Leading to more and more military. The power that everyone craved lead to the technology that we have today. It evolves over time. If war continues, things will just get worse and worse for the civilians of the world. How long until there is a massive time-bomb in the earth's core? We cannot go back in time and stop war from ever happening, but stopping while we are ahead might be a good idea. I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. See above. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... bullsh!t. Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb". Exactly why war should end. Why are you pro-war in that case?

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldn't that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? True happiness for one who is empty inside. Of you had 100 years to think over your death after you died, how many people would be happy and still pro-war after that? Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war. Even worse than before, in that case.

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price. I still do not see why you support war, if that is indeed the case.



What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

My responses are written in green.

[itachiuchiha85]

Originally Posted by R.K.

I am not anti war, but I am not pro war. I have no problems with the way wars are fought right now, as long as we don't nuke each other. If you are pro war, go join the army.

It is not as easy as joining the army. People fight now because they are forced to fight. Back then, if you were a slave then you were ..., but people actually wanted to fight for their own city or country. Now it is more of a "well you signed now you HAVE to go" about a month ago in the city i am from a girl (19) hung herself because she had signed with the armed forces when she was 17 i think and they were harassing her because she didnt wanna go anymore so they threaten her with prison and she could not take it so she hung herself. I know when you signed there goes your right to say "no" but damn to be imprisoned for it that is taking it to the extreme. War should be voluntary not mandatory after you signed the contract. And no she didnt have or took benefits at signing.

[Sage Of Six Paths]

Originally Posted by itachiuchiha85

It is not as easy as joining the army. People fight now because they are forced to fight. Back then, if you were a slave then you were , but people actually wanted to fight for their own city or country. Now it is more of a "well you signed now you HAVE to go" about a month ago in the city i am from a girl (19) hung herself because she had signed with the armed forces when she was 17 i think and they were harassing her because she didnt wanna go anymore so they threaten her with prison and she could not take it so she hung herself. I know when you signed there goes your right to say "no" but damn to be imprisoned for it that is taking it to the extreme. War should be voluntary not mandatory after you signed the contract. And no she didnt have or took benefits at signing.

That's deep.

But what about all that I said

two posts up?

[itachiuchiha85]

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end. Speaking can also be a means to advance if both sides are willing to do so. War evolves from anger, something which all human beings experience. It is natural to want to fight someone, that doesn't make it any better than talking to them. (ive said it before, swords change history faster than words)

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. But without reason. Simply to gain power. And how did that advance society today? (go back not too long ago, to WW2, after that war we became the super power that we are today)I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. That was a brutal slaughter. With totally unfair sides. A massacre cannot even be compared to a war, as you said. But it would have been batter if they all died in a war, rather than outside of one?(Massacre? with the mayans? they have not found the reason why they disappeared yet. With the mongols after conquering what they wanted they just blended with the new society and the mongols as they were disappeared. No it would not have been better if they died in a war, all i am saying is that not many civilizations fell just because) But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare. But did that really accomplish anything in terms of technological advancement or prosperity? True that riches were gained, and that riches did lead lands to prosper. But that is survival of the fittest. The way of animals. Human beings have been gifted with the ability to extend and evolve beyond that point, where communication through words in possible. Actions speak louder then words, but are they too loud?(They might be too loud to some ears, to others not. Technological advancements? the reason we have a lot of our things now like GPS, microwaves is becuase technological advances in war. What you think the satellites are up there just to give service to verizon wireless?)

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. A privilage to be in an unjust cause. Being in a war is nothing bad. But starting one is what is wrong.(agreed on this one, i am more of a defender than an attacker. Tho why when it comes to indepence wars we all never say that is an unjust cause?) Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way? Make them proud? Dying would make them proud. To die on the battlefield. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. But the idea of it is still wrong. Is having someone be proud of you worth all of the pain they get if you die? War is horrible because it takes away and gives nothing but empty power back. True happiness can never be gained from war.(see thoughts like this is what is making the armed forces soft. There is a saying that goes like this "A coward's mother does not cry" and it is true. I am not talking about true happiness i never mentioned that, war brings prosperity to a country, look at germany, after WW1 they were in the shitters, then comes WW2 and they rise to glory. They fell but if they would have won they would have been set for years to come.)

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Because humans have evolved into cowards. War was never right. Using guns hasn't changed anything. (Humans have evolved to cowards and war has a lot to do with it. Even a child can kill a man twice his size with a bullet. That is why "leaders" take advantage in the kids that they have, give them a gun they can still kill someone)Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.) I see your point. I just do not agree with it. Such wars were mainly fought for empty power. Participating in the war is what was considered right. But going to war was never even touched upon. The act of war within itself is just plain wrong. ( i can see that you are anti war, which is not bad but my point is that wars were more meaningful back then. Most wars that i have studied are wars that the people have to defend their country. Those wars are justified. The crusades are not, and all wars like that should not be justified.)

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecessors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. Honor in battle does not, by any means, amke war the right thing to do. (Yes it does. If we get invaded by the world and we knew we were gonna die and we still go to battle, it is an honor to be next to every other person that knows they are gonna die but still fought against that. You are thinking of nothing but wars that the US has started. Useless wars) I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genius or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, I know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. War should not have changed. But it changed because people refused to stop war. Everyone always had to get the upper hand. Leading to more and more military. The power that everyone craved lead to the technology that we have today. It evolves over time. If war continues, things will just get worse and worse for the civilians of the world. How long until there is a massive time-bomb in the earth's core? We cannot go back in time and stop war from ever happening, but stopping while we are ahead might be a good idea. (agreed. Tho you did say that war had nothing to do with our advancements in the other paragraph. But yeah wars should have stayed the same way, stones and sticks.) I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. See above. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... bullsh!t. Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb". Exactly why war should end. Why are you pro-war in that case? (I am pro war, the JUST pro war. Which in this era it does not exist. not that it ever truly existed but it was more JUST back then. It was honorable to go to war, now is just a tool of the government.)

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldn't that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? True happiness for one who is empty inside. Of you had 100 years to think over your death after you died, how many people would be happy and still pro-war after that? (All my family. All my family tree that remembered the fight would be proud to speak of me as the "fallen uncle" or the "fallen cousin" or the "fallen father at the war of 587bc, our independence."Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war. Even worse than before, in that case.(way worse. Which is unfair.)

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price. I still do not see why you support war, if that is indeed the case.(because at least back then the "seniors" would go into war with them. Not like todays cowards.)

Wars will always be there, that is human nature. But the way they are fought and handled is wrong. You have to remember that most wars back then were to advance your civilization to greater things, riches, technology, power, enlightment. Now is more of riches only.

What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

[itachiuchiha85]

Originally Posted by Sage Of Six Paths

That's deep.

But what about all that I said

two posts up?

posted.

[Sage Of Six Paths]

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end. Speaking can also be a means to advance if both sides are willing to do so. War evolves from anger, something which all human beings experience. It is natural to want to fight someone, that doesn't make it any better than talking to them. (ive said it before, swords change history faster than words) Is doing things faster really worth the loss of lives? Because humans are also impatient and aggressive, we rush to violence. That being our nature, speaking things out is secondary. True that it would take longer, but isn't 1000 lives worth 500 days?

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. But without reason. Simply to gain power. And how did that advance society today? (go back not too long ago, to WW2, after that war we became the super power that we are today) This so called, 'super-power' has only been used in more war. That's the things, war powers only itself as well as death. But what has it done to help us, morally? (Besides all of the video-games XD I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. That was a brutal slaughter. With totally unfair sides. A massacre cannot even be compared to a war, as you said. But it would have been batter if they all died in a war, rather than outside of one?(Massacre? with the mayans? they have not found the reason why they disappeared yet. With the mongols after conquering what they wanted they just blended with the new society and the mongols as they were disappeared. No it would not have been better if they died in a war, all i am saying is that not many civilizations fell just because) Point taken. But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare. But did that really accomplish anything in terms of technological advancement or prosperity? True that riches were gained, and that riches did lead lands to prosper. But that is survival of the fittest. The way of animals. Human beings have been gifted with the ability to extend and evolve beyond that point, where communication through words in possible. Actions speak louder then words, but are they too loud?(They might be too loud to some ears, to others not. Technological advancements? the reason we have a lot of our things now like GPS, microwaves is becuase technological advances in war. What you think the satellites are up there just to give service to verizon wireless?) As I said earlier, humans are impatient. Rushing in to the newest thing. Eventually, even without war, all of the things that we have today would be invented in a way more peaceful, saving more and more lives. Satelites are a magnificent thing to behold. But not if you think of all of the millions of lives they were built to ultimately kill.

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. A privilage to be in an unjust cause. Being in a war is nothing bad. But starting one is what is wrong.(agreed on this one, i am more of a defender than an attacker. Tho why when it comes to indepence wars we all never say that is an unjust cause?) Agreed. Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way? Make them proud? Dying would make them proud. To die on the battlefield. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. But the idea of it is still wrong. Is having someone be proud of you worth all of the pain they get if you die? War is horrible because it takes away and gives nothing but empty power back. True happiness can never be gained from war.(see thoughts like this is what is making the armed forces soft. There is a saying that goes like this "A coward's mother does not cry" and it is true. I am not talking about true happiness i never mentioned that, war brings prosperity to a country, look at germany, after WW1 they were in the shitters, then comes WW2 and they rise to glory. They fell but if they would have won they would have been set for years to come.) I tried not to sound the way I did because I knew that you would say just that. Buty looking back on what I wrote makes me want to re-write it. There is honor in dying for your country, there is nothing wrong in wanting to. But what I meant is why the war was started? The general idea of people killing each other isn't exactly a good one. but when worst comes to worst, I agree that honor is the best way.

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Because humans have evolved into cowards. War was never right. Using guns hasn't changed anything. (Humans have evolved to cowards and war has a lot to do with it. Even a child can kill a man twice his size with a bullet. That is why "leaders" take advantage in the kids that they have, give them a gun they can still kill someone) How does this make war right? That is exactly what I am trying to say. Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.) I see your point. I just do not agree with it. Such wars were mainly fought for empty power. Participating in the war is what was considered right. But going to war was never even touched upon. The act of war within itself is just plain wrong. ( i can see that you are anti war, which is not bad but my point is that wars were more meaningful back then. Most wars that i have studied are wars that the people have to defend their country. Those wars are justified. The crusades are not, and all wars like that should not be justified.) Wars back then, I see your point. But there was always an antagonist. That person who fires the first gun, who throws the first spear, who says the first thing. One side (Sometimes even both) wants something from the other. Never can it be a war where both sides are trying to defend themselves, because to do that, one side must be on the offense.

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecessors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. Honor in battle does not, by any means, make war the right thing to do. (Yes it does. If we get invaded by the world and we knew we were gonna die and we still go to battle, it is an honor to be next to every other person that knows they are gonna die but still fought against that. You are thinking of nothing but wars that the US has started. Useless wars) I was saying that it isn't right on the side of the invaders. If the US were to be invaded, my point is that it was wrong for us to be invaded in the first place. I was thinking of all wars. There is always either an issue, or something that you want that the other side has. I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genius or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, I know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. War should not have changed. But it changed because people refused to stop war. Everyone always had to get the upper hand. Leading to more and more military. The power that everyone craved lead to the technology that we have today. It evolves over time. If war continues, things will just get worse and worse for the civilians of the world. How long until there is a massive time-bomb in the earth's core? We cannot go back in time and stop war from ever happening, but stopping while we are ahead might be a good idea. (agreed. Tho you did say that war had nothing to do with our advancements in the other paragraph. But yeah wars should have stayed the same way, stones and sticks.) Agreed. I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. See above. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... bullsh!t. Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb". Exactly why war should end. Why are you pro-war in that case? (I am pro war, the JUST pro war. Which in this era it does not exist. not that it ever truly existed but it was more JUST back then. It was honorable to go to war, now is just a tool of the government.) Exactly. Now-a-days, there is always some kind of sinister motive. Money, religion, power, everything that corupts us, for all time, has been the start of war.

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldn't that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? True happiness for one who is empty inside. Of you had 100 years to think over your death after you died, how many people would be happy and still pro-war after that? (All my family. All my family tree that remembered the fight would be proud to speak of me as the "fallen uncle" or the "fallen cousin" or the "fallen father at the war of 587bc, our independence. True, but would they be happy that the war started in the first place? Happy that they died for a just cause, but if they had the choice between dying for a country in a war, or long-lasting peace in which no war was ever fought throughout their lifetime and they live a good long life, which would they choose?Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war. Even worse than before, in that case.(way worse. Which is unfair.) Agreed.

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price. I still do not see why you support war, if that is indeed the case.(because at least back then the "seniors" would go into war with them. Not like todays cowards.) Partially agreed.

Wars will always be there, that is human nature. But the way they are fought and handled is wrong. You have to remember that most wars back then were to advance your civilization to greater things, riches, technology, power, enlightment. Now is more of riches only.

The one that got me here was enlightenment. What the hell?

Fighting to learn how to fight? To raid a library and steal all of their books?

The human nature to fight is wrong, and that is what I am trying to stress.

Even if wars are for the right things, would you be able to give me an example in

which there was a so-called, right thing?

What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

[itachiuchiha85]

As you guys may know, i am pro war, I see war as a means for one country to mover forward with its future and another one (the conquered) to end. Speaking can also be a means to advance if both sides are willing to do so. War evolves from anger, something which all human beings experience. It is natural to want to fight someone, that doesn't make it any better than talking to them. (ive said it before, swords change history faster than words) Is doing things faster really worth the loss of lives? Because humans are also impatient and aggressive, we rush to violence. That being our nature, speaking things out is secondary. True that it would take longer, but isn't 1000 lives worth 500 days? (1000 lives might not be worth 500 days, but 100,000 lives are worth dying for 100 years of saving time. Harsh? yes. Will it improve the country? maybe. I want to be able to see the fruits of the war that i am fighting. I want my kids to see it too. So Ill gladly lose my life if it will help move towards resolving the war at a faster time. From 100 years fighting to 10, 100,000 lives is worth losing.)

It is a harsh thing (war) but in my eyes a necessary thing. Empires rise and fall because of war. But without reason. Simply to gain power. And how did that advance society today? (go back not too long ago, to WW2, after that war we became the super power that we are today) This so called, 'super-power' has only been used in more war. That's the things, war powers only itself as well as death. But what has it done to help us, morally? (Besides all of the video-games XD (morally? There is no such thing that a war is suppose to teach others besides the fact that you were superior to the other country. Morals start at home not on the battle field)I can recall two civilizations that vanished without war taking them out, the Mayans and the Mongols. That was a brutal slaughter. With totally unfair sides. A massacre cannot even be compared to a war, as you said. But it would have been batter if they all died in a war, rather than outside of one?(Massacre? with the mayans? they have not found the reason why they disappeared yet. With the mongols after conquering what they wanted they just blended with the new society and the mongols as they were disappeared. No it would not have been better if they died in a war, all i am saying is that not many civilizations fell just because) Point taken. But every other empire/civilization that has perish to the jaws of time have gone because of internal or external warfare. But did that really accomplish anything in terms of technological advancement or prosperity? True that riches were gained, and that riches did lead lands to prosper. But that is survival of the fittest. The way of animals. Human beings have been gifted with the ability to extend and evolve beyond that point, where communication through words in possible. Actions speak louder then words, but are they too loud?(They might be too loud to some ears, to others not. Technological advancements? the reason we have a lot of our things now like GPS, microwaves is becuase technological advances in war. What you think the satellites are up there just to give service to verizon wireless?) As I said earlier, humans are impatient. Rushing in to the newest thing. Eventually, even without war, all of the things that we have today would be invented in a way more peaceful, saving more and more lives. Satelites are a magnificent thing to behold. But not if you think of all of the millions of lives they were built to ultimately kill.(Necessity is the key to invention. War needed those things so they were invented. I would hate to have waited longer to actually have internet. Cause lets face it, internet would have been invented by the 2000's and we would have barely started to really know the endless possibilities of internet. Also i like my popcorn in less than 4 minutes lol)

"war is beautiful to those that have not experienced it yet" I do not believe this. I believe that war is not a duty but a privilege to be in. A privilage to be in an unjust cause. Being in a war is nothing bad. But starting one is what is wrong.(agreed on this one, i am more of a defender than an attacker. Tho why when it comes to indepence wars we all never say that is an unjust cause?) Agreed. Think about it, what better way to make your family/friends proud then to serve your country in the most unselfish way? Make them proud? Dying would make them proud. To die on the battlefield. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with that. But the idea of it is still wrong. Is having someone be proud of you worth all of the pain they get if you die? War is horrible because it takes away and gives nothing but empty power back. True happiness can never be gained from war.(see thoughts like this is what is making the armed forces soft. There is a saying that goes like this "A coward's mother does not cry" and it is true. I am not talking about true happiness i never mentioned that, war brings prosperity to a country, look at germany, after WW1 they were in the shitters, then comes WW2 and they rise to glory. They fell but if they would have won they would have been set for years to come.) I tried not to sound the way I did because I knew that you would say just that. Buty looking back on what I wrote makes me want to re-write it. There is honor in dying for your country, there is nothing wrong in wanting to. But what I meant is why the war was started? The general idea of people killing each other isn't exactly a good one. but when worst comes to worst, I agree that honor is the best way.(exactly, most wars nowadays start over stupid reasons and false information. There is no honor in dying in vain, nor glory.)

The thing is that in today's war system the whole "i shoot you from faaaaar away, you die" principle is really taking the whole courage/bravery/brains/tactics/will/man power/pride, out of war. Because humans have evolved into cowards. War was never right. Using guns hasn't changed anything. (Humans have evolved to cowards and war has a lot to do with it. Even a child can kill a man twice his size with a bullet. That is why "leaders" take advantage in the kids that they have, give them a gun they can still kill someone) How does this make war right? That is exactly what I am trying to say(war is not suppose to be right, war is a horrible thing. But it is still needed. It goes down all the way to helping reduce population too.). Call me crazy but i think that the way wars were fought in the roman/medieval/BC times were more appropriate (such a word to describe war, well.) I see your point. I just do not agree with it. Such wars were mainly fought for empty power. Participating in the war is what was considered right. But going to war was never even touched upon. The act of war within itself is just plain wrong. ( i can see that you are anti war, which is not bad but my point is that wars were more meaningful back then. Most wars that i have studied are wars that the people have to defend their country. Those wars are justified. The crusades are not, and all wars like that should not be justified.) Wars back then, I see your point. But there was always an antagonist. That person who fires the first gun, who throws the first spear, who says the first thing. One side (Sometimes even both) wants something from the other. Never can it be a war where both sides are trying to defend themselves, because to do that, one side must be on the offense.(True, but how about our emancipation proclamation? We always attack other people. I think the only war that we actually went in by force was WW1. So in essence we are antagonist of this world. That is why we go to war and waste youth on useless wars.)

It took more than guts and bravery to actually go into the battle field to face the enemy head on. Courage is something that most people are missing nowadays. I am not saying our armed forces are "chickens" but i am saying that they are not as brave as our predecessors. Only the brave die in the battlefield, this could be true now and then but it actually meant something back then. Honor in battle does not, by any means, make war the right thing to do. (Yes it does. If we get invaded by the world and we knew we were gonna die and we still go to battle, it is an honor to be next to every other person that knows they are gonna die but still fought against that. You are thinking of nothing but wars that the US has started. Useless wars) I was saying that it isn't right on the side of the invaders. If the US were to be invaded, my point is that it was wrong for us to be invaded in the first place. I was thinking of all wars. There is always either an issue, or something that you want that the other side has. (true. true true. Okay lets say the US gets over populated to the point that every single square inch in this country is covered with people. No food, water, or comfort. There are 2 or 3 options, deal with it and watch millions die; try to do something about it but take time and still watch millions of people die; or go to war to conquer more land, lose a couple of hundred thousand people to save us all? Which one would you think its fair to do?) I think the reason people start "booing" our military is because they know that it does not take a genius or a super brave human being to stand guard with a weapon that can kill you before the enemy sees him/her. Bella, horrida, bella. Its scary that as much as war was horrid back then, it is even more horrible now.

Times change, I know that, but for some reason i think wars should not have changed. War should not have changed. But it changed because people refused to stop war. Everyone always had to get the upper hand. Leading to more and more military. The power that everyone craved lead to the technology that we have today. It evolves over time. If war continues, things will just get worse and worse for the civilians of the world. How long until there is a massive time-bomb in the earth's core? We cannot go back in time and stop war from ever happening, but stopping while we are ahead might be a good idea. (agreed. Tho you did say that war had nothing to do with our advancements in the other paragraph. But yeah wars should have stayed the same way, stones and sticks.) Agreed. I do not think that is fair for 100k innocent people to die without having the chance to fight for their lives. See above. What happened to chivalry on wars? Everything is fair in love and war... bullsh!t. Maybe in love but in war a man should always have the right to defend himself without being killed by an unseen enemy flying high in the sky like a bunch of cowards just dropping "the bomb". Exactly why war should end. Why are you pro-war in that case? (I am pro war, the JUST pro war. Which in this era it does not exist. not that it ever truly existed but it was more JUST back then. It was honorable to go to war, now is just a tool of the government.) Exactly. Now-a-days, there is always some kind of sinister motive. Money, religion, power, everything that corupts us, for all time, has been the start of war.(no wars are started (most wars) by greedy leaders. I dont mind a war where a leader would forgive the other side and say "look we just wanna rule you because of this that you have, we wont take rights away from you or anything just let us get what we want and we'll be looking after you for the time being")

I would have loved to be in the battlefield at the same time as my general. Imagine fighting side to side with your own general? wouldn't that make you happy, that the guy that is sending you to, probably, your death is charging too? True happiness for one who is empty inside. Of you had 100 years to think over your death after you died, how many people would be happy and still pro-war after that? (All my family. All my family tree that remembered the fight would be proud to speak of me as the "fallen uncle" or the "fallen cousin" or the "fallen father at the war of 587bc, our independence. True, but would they be happy that the war started in the first place? Happy that they died for a just cause, but if they had the choice between dying for a country in a war, or long-lasting peace in which no war was ever fought throughout their lifetime and they live a good long life, which would they choose? (well if you ask a spartan they would choose war. The thing is ever lasting peace does not exist, so the more reasonable thing that would happen would be war, hence dying for your country would be an honor)Showing how much he cares for this cause? Now a days our generals sit in a room smoke a cigar and talk about the next vacation and who is getting the president's villa if they win the war. Even worse than before, in that case.(way worse. Which is unfair.) Agreed.

The young will fight and die over the senior's declaration of war. It's unfair that the ones that start the wars get to stay home. While the youth pays the price. I still do not see why you support war, if that is indeed the case.(because at least back then the "seniors" would go into war with them. Not like todays cowards.) Partially agreed.

Wars will always be there, that is human nature. But the way they are fought and handled is wrong. You have to remember that most wars back then were to advance your civilization to greater things, riches, technology, power, enlightment. Now is more of riches only.

The one that got me here was enlightenment. What the hell?

Fighting to learn how to fight? To raid a library and steal all of their books?

The human nature to fight is wrong, and that is what I am trying to stress.

Even if wars are for the right things, would you be able to give me an example in

which there was a so-called, right thing? (no such thing as "right thing" when it comes to war. 2 people go in only one leaves. That is war. Enlightenment has happened after wars, after WW2 we went up on science, during roman wars they invented the screw the water pump aqueducts and such, all because they needed those things to supply the armies with enough water and food. War is war. Its a horrible thing but necessary non the less.)

Would you kill one person to save the lives of thousands? that is what war is suppose to be.

What do you think of our current war system with the WMD and far away killing silent enemies?

I hate it, i really do.

[R.K.]

Originally Posted by itachiuchiha85

It is not as easy as joining the army. People fight now because they are forced to fight. Back then, if you were a slave then you were , but people actually wanted to fight for their own city or country. Now it is more of a "well you signed now you HAVE to go" about a month ago in the city i am from a girl (19) hung herself because she had signed with the armed forces when she was 17 i think and they were harassing her because she didnt wanna go anymore so they threaten her with prison and she could not take it so she hung herself. I know when you signed there goes your right to say "no" but damn to be imprisoned for it that is taking it to the extreme. War should be voluntary not mandatory after you signed the contract. And no she didnt have or took benefits at signing.

I don't give a damn because if she joined, then it's her own fault. If she couldn't handle it then she shouldn't have joined.

Also, I've not even going to try to read the last few post's because all of the color is confusing at 2:20AM.

[Drake2pto]

"Thus so long as we have shinobi culture(war), the monster known as hate will always give birth to new pains." -The Fourth Hokage

[itachiuchiha85]

Originally Posted by R.K.

I don't give a damn because if she joined, then it's her own fault. If she couldn't handle it then she shouldn't have joined.

Also, I've not even going to try to read the last few post's because all of the color is confusing at 2:20AM.

So you lose one american life just because of the harrassement and you said "whatever" what a patriot.

[Bacon]

well thought out but i have to disagree with ur love

war isnt about anything good, its for the rich to gain everything and the poor to suffer without gain.
there is no honor in war, there is pride in war, only fueling a endless cycle of hate
but war is also inevitable because its evolution's tool for killing us off since humans conquer disease,famine and weather changes not easily but we have.

[Kon]

ok this is confusing

[Bacon]

what is?

[Kon]

ok we are talking about som girl who quit the army right

[Bacon]

ok so didnt read it, read the jyst of it, so rk doesnt care about war, hes neutral and could give a crap join the army and someone after him was offended because the girl hung herself.


Edited out by itachiuchiha85. Dont go too crazy now.