is war neccesary?

[Danny]

certain circumstances really do call for war. WW2 is a perfect example. People who think Hitler could have been subdued through peaceful means are just plain naive.

[pschy_leprae]

Originally Posted by zshortysmall

War is not good, and a world without war would be a perfect world, but that's impossible.
Some wars are neccesary, like WWII, and some are not, like every american war after.
WWII was needed to stop a madman that was taking over Europe.
Those after were wars on ideas that conflict our own, if they could even be called that.

LOL so Allies stopped Hitler , but without Hitler there was no one left to stop allies . XD
It think the whole reason behind allied countries hating nazis so much is becouse they don't like their own reflection. Lets take soviets and americans for example : soviests intentionaly starved millions of ukrainians , americans used nucks on civilian population . That classifies as genocide in my book . So yeah , people suck , get used to it .XD

[krozar]

Originally Posted by pschy_leprae

LOL so Allies stopped Hitler , but without Hitler there was no one left to stop allies . XD
It think the whole reason behind allied countries hating nazis so much is becouse they don't like their own reflection. Lets take soviets and americans for example : soviests intentionaly starved millions of ukrainians , americans used nucks on civilian population . That classifies as genocide in my book . So yeah , people suck , get used to it .XD

Hmmmm...

soviests intentionaly starved millions of ukrainians , americans used nucks on civilian population

Ironically, had America not quickly taken over Japan and occupied it, much of Japan would have been under Soviet occupation. You know, those guys you say starved millions in the Ukraine. That's actually one of the many things which happened under Stalin. Stalin loved to go into areas of the USSR with a certain ethnic nationality and just say: "take out 10 percent of them."

You're such an idiot though. Systematic killing such as seen in the holocaust was just normal European affairs huh?

[PC Chris]

Originally Posted by pschy_leprae

A crusades were called by the church with intentions of capturing more land , wealth and devotion of people . It kida obvious but apparently not for you all , who ever controls your devoted relationship with gods rules on earth.

Yeah because the whole attempted take over by the Muslims wasn't reason enough to go to war with them, yep totally not.

and in your previous statement blaming a religion is completely justifiable, yes with or without it you would still have the evil guys doing evil things and the good guys doing good things. But in order to have that good guy do an evil thing you have to make him believe in a superstitious ideology.

[XandorXerxes]

Originally Posted by pschy_leprae

LOL so Allies stopped Hitler , but without Hitler there was no one left to stop allies . XD
It think the whole reason behind allied countries hating nazis so much is becouse they don't like their own reflection. Lets take soviets and americans for example : soviests intentionaly starved millions of ukrainians , americans used nucks on civilian population . That classifies as genocide in my book . So yeah , people suck , get used to it .XD

Also in regards to Japan, the Japanese had told us they were going to fight us down to every last woman and child. Americans were estimating casualties MUCH higher on BOTH sides than were caused by the bombs. Even after the first nuke Japan didn't surrender. It wasn't until we showed that we had the capacity to just keep going that they finally decided it wasn't worth it.

Yes, we leveled two cities and killed many people. However, compared to an actual takeover of Japan we saved lives (in terms of total death count, not just "our side") by using the nukes. Heck, there's even an entire branch to thought that says nuclear weapons make the world safer, because if each side knows that either A) they're going to get wiped out or B) the world is going to end, they're less likely to attack. Being in power over a country is only worthwhile if you have a country to be in power over.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by pschy_leprae

LOL so Allies stopped Hitler , but without Hitler there was no one left to stop allies . XD

This makes abosolutely no sense.
The allies(Speaking strictly of america) were not bent on global ethnic cleansing and ultimate dominion of the planet.

Originally Posted by lkjlkj

It think the whole reason behind allied countries hating nazis so much is becouse they don't like their own reflection.

Your posts are nothing but nonsensical words.
They are completly void of logical cohesion, whats the point of anybody even responding to you? Honestly, i dont know why i do.

I like to think i know my history, and according to my knowledge, save maybe the russians(that allience was only temporary anyway, they needed russia's support regardless of the political implications) the allies never comitted genocide.

Originally Posted by sfsdfsd

Lets take soviets and americans for example : soviests intentionaly starved millions of ukrainians , americans used nucks on civilian population .

Why you even reference the soviets in the same catagory as the US completly alludes me.
They only had a temporary alliance in world war 2, but after that we all know the atrocities that carried out by the soviet union, they were germany 2.0(Just not as genocidal) I Fail to see why you are attempting to imply the soviets had a good reputation to stain in their actions.
They were bad, the end...dont use them as an example next to america when speaking of crimes againts humanity.

Second point.

There has only been one nuclear attack carried out by the united states, in the history of U.S warfare. I am ofcourse talking about nagasaki, and the infamous hiroshima bombings.
And this was in response to an attack by the japanese, made on pearl harbour.

So if you were implying that those bombings were somehow done for malevolent and imperialistic purposes, you sir are wrong.

Originally Posted by sad;lfjsal;dfs

That classifies as genocide in my book . So yeah , people suck , get used to it .XD

Nobody cares what you classify as genocide.

I could classify a tomato as a vegetable, but that doesnt mean sqaut since its not a vegetable.

[Aizen-sama]

basically war is not right...but there often comes a time when the state of things becomes too drastic that drastic action in itself is(or seems) necessary....this is what leads to war...the retaliation due to a lack of understanding by the other party of the ultimate purpose....yet, this only applies if True Wisdom is allied to one of the parties involved....the point is....war will happen wether or not it is necessary...

[Interpreter]

To me in reality war is just another byproduct of human inperfection and differences. Just as religion, cults, groups, and ethnicitys. Is war necessary, not in a perfect world but this isn't a perfect world. The reason negotiation doesn't always work is because of our flaws or differences in thoughts, actions, or ideals.

Am I the same as you, No then we may end up fighting over something that we think should be done differently. There is a war for you right there just on a minuscule level, but still is one, or what we call a fight. Fight, battle, war, they are all the same just on different scales of size. Are any of these things necessary not really. But they still happen.

Even Debates are wars sometimes, everyone is able to agree up to a certain point then comes the complete opposite view from another person. A war of words takes place, but is even this war of words necessary. Though words can't cause physical harm it can cause emotional harm. Which harm still holds the same meaning just a different form.

Even still there are millions of exampls that could be said, shown, or explained.

Is war necessary no, but it still happens, it's merely a part of life. If life is necessary, then so is war. If life is not necessary then war is not.

[Syfer Van Hyden]

I think war is a harsh necessity because certain circumstances requires the use of force, not everything can flow easily and not everyone agrees with how things are run.

[PurpleSheep]

War is necessary I personally don't even beleive that there is a point in arguing against that, since the dawn of mankind we have used force to solve differences that cannot be solved with words.

The problem with a lot of wars is people avoid war so much that they create a bigger problem like when the allies took a policy of appeasement to Germany at the time before the Rhineland was remiliterised France could have walked in and destroyed the German armed forces and removed the threat of war.

When Germany joined with Austria in Anschluss they still could have defeated Germany with a significant amount of ease drawing on the population of Austria a lot of who opposed Hitler but knew with no support if they voiced their views they would die.

Even during the Czech crisis they could have created two fronts and with Germany with no quick method of retaliating against France or England it would have again been alot easier.

Force is needed and it will always be needed, the people holding the power should know when to use it and the public should be there to call them in check if they use it wrong.

Originally Posted by krozar

Like it or not, the modern world was created by war and I think the horrors of WWI played a big role in European feelings regarding war, including WWII which the countries were thrust into.

No matter what country you live in, every square meter of the land you walked on was purchased in blood. Those in the Western hemisphere fared better but there was still a lot of payment such as seen with the Trail of Tears and even the US Civil War which was bad, but necessary to unite America in the end because there was always the division, but distances and low population prevented an all out war happening earlier on.

War is evil, but it is human nature to wage war. We are dealing with a world which is a slave to the human condition. It is unnecessary if one takes out that piece of the equation. But it's an untouchable force just as pi is ~3.14...

So, in that standpoint: yes, it is necessary.

World War 2 and the Final Solution along with Stalin's purges had the similar effect, shock to the world doesn't last very long though.

[pschy_leprae]

Originally Posted by krozar

Hmmmm...



Ironically, had America not quickly taken over Japan and occupied it, much of Japan would have been under Soviet occupation. You know, those guys you say starved millions in the Ukraine. That's actually one of the many things which happened under Stalin. Stalin loved to go into areas of the USSR with a certain ethnic nationality and just say: "take out 10 percent of them."

You're such an idiot though. Systematic killing such as seen in the holocaust was just normal European affairs huh?

ja I know my people starved my other people to death, by taking my peoples grain and selling it USA and Britan for cheap . And you guys loved it , now thats funny no ?

Originally Posted by XandorXerxes

Yes, we leveled two cities and killed many people. However, compared to an actual takeover of Japan we saved lives (in terms of total death count, not just "our side") by using the nukes. Heck, there's even an entire branch to thought that says nuclear weapons make the world safer, because if each side knows that either A) they're going to get wiped out or B) the world is going to end, they're less likely to attack. Being in power over a country is only worthwhile if you have a country to be in power over.

Why do I have a feeling that people who came up with this "branch of though " share something in common with people who wrote "Setting our sights on Canada’s 2020 Prosperity Agenda". In other words they are completely devoided of any foresight and are just paid of by rich elite to argue that reducing taxes on capital gain and corporate tax will in some magical way help the rest of society . You know you don’t need nuclear weapons to keep up the balance of power . If my memory doesn’t lie to me , after fall of Napoleon, European leaders came up with a nifty system the held peace until WWI .

I also love your vision of justice ... so you killed bunch of civilians then you pardon most war criminals who actually did naughty things because you need ally against soviets. So as always it’s the population is the one actually that takes all the punishment, not the guilty. Not defending japanese leaders here, they are the once who should've been burned alive for intentionally setting death cults and mass suicide in Okinawa

more then half of European wars could've been simply resolved by throwing competing princes into pit and let them fight to death , winner would've gotten the throne .
P.S
honestly 95% of wars could’ve been avoided , if not for pride , arrogance and pure stupidity .

[PurpleSheep]

Originally Posted by pschy_leprae

more then half of European wars could've been simply resolved by throwing competing princes into pit and let them fight to death , winner would've gotten the throne .
P.S
honestly 95% of wars could’ve been avoided , if not for pride , arrogance and pure stupidity .

Care to back this up with ya know facts?

95% of wars could be avoided if not for greed.

[Keerua]

Originally Posted by XandorXerxes

Also in regards to Japan, the Japanese had told us they were going to fight us down to every last woman and child. Americans were estimating casualties MUCH higher on BOTH sides than were caused by the bombs. Even after the first nuke Japan didn't surrender. It wasn't until we showed that we had the capacity to just keep going that they finally decided it wasn't worth it.

Yes, we leveled two cities and killed many people. However, compared to an actual takeover of Japan we saved lives (in terms of total death count, not just "our side") by using the nukes. Heck, there's even an entire branch to thought that says nuclear weapons make the world safer, because if each side knows that either A) they're going to get wiped out or B) the world is going to end, they're less likely to attack. Being in power over a country is only worthwhile if you have a country to be in power over.

Were the japanese gonna throw rocks at America? They had nothing left, the nukes were just a "I got a bigger penis than everyone else and just as big if not bigger than russia" statement, and it costs 100ks of lifes, retardedly disgusting and not necessary at all, why is an occupation necessary? Sure it made Japan much better but at what cost?


I don't like the kind of thinking that thinks of something as granted and proceed to solve its symptoms and not the disease, why should scenario A and B be possible at all? I may be naive but a situation where everyone is having a good time > just a couple of countries having a good time, this requires everyone to agree on something and has no guarantee of people keeping their deal but if we have less "#¤%!"#!"# like Bush I am sure it will happen someday, otherwise we are gonna fuck ourselfs real hard, the rate at which we are advancing will eventually lead to our doom, what is to stop a madman from pressing the button?

[pschy_leprae]

i probably shouldn't mention this but : nazis were willing to through the final solution and fry bunch of jews to achieve their objective , americans were willing to go throw final solution and fry bunch of japanese to get their objective .... oh and you did put em into camps too ..
so you see where my comment "if not nazis who would stop alies " comes from

for purple sheep : lets see vietnam war was just to show stupid commies who got bigger penis, first afganistan war is same thing but to show stupid capitalist swines who got bigger penis , 100 years war was to show stupid froggies that its english crown not frech , list really goes on and on

[N0sf3ra2]

..I'm just waiting for the next war to happen. it's only a matter of time since America seems to be going back into depression

[Yuuki Cross]

I think that their should be war but not for the reasons that are goin on right now. i sorta agree with you all but then i really don't, i don't know*confused*

[pschy_leprae]

Originally Posted by Yuuki Cross

I think that their should be war but not for the reasons that are goin on right now. i sorta agree with you all but then i really don't, i don't know*confused*

you know you think better if your are not under substance influence ..... but it feels so much better studying drunk ......

dunno according to guys like Machiavelli, army is necessary to uphold peace , and occasionally wars are inevitable . But just because people are bunch of bastards and like to fight doesn't mean that our current warfare is necessary way of fighting . What happened with good old Napoleonic era when armies would crash in the fields without affecting civilian lives ? Are we actually regressing back to ancient savagery where main objective is completely decimate our enemy. In most of the resent wars we gassed , bombed and incinerate enemy cities . If war is inevitable , can we make it more "civilized"? Now that's an interesting question too , no ?

[MetallicThor]

Originally Posted by Vizard Hiei

i know war is not right and its a horrifying thing

but i think its right to stand up for your country and fight instead of doing nothing and letting your own people be killed and letting your country be overran or destoyed

am i right? or am i wrong?

and is is wrong to kill somebody (or tons of people) that deserves to die in the name of justice and peace?

Well, in my opinion everyone is entitled to fighting for their country as in defending it. War is an innate instinct in the human mind, let alone the fact that we have been practicing war for ages now.

[pschy_leprae]

Originally Posted by MetallicThor

Well, in my opinion everyone is entitled to fighting for their country as in defending it. War is an innate instinct in the human mind, let alone the fact that we have been practicing war for ages now.

but defending your country statement is a bit ambiguous , don't you think ? USA is defending american , freedom , liberty and way of life thousands kilometers from american soil .....

[haydee]

War is not as black and white as the first poster has put it. Its extremely grey and has been part of the way mankind has dealt with situations that have led to war. Yes in most cases it is some type of idiological belife, as sad as this is and others come about to protect their country from invasion of another. But make no mistake, whatever the reason, your taking a life and you deal with that the rest of your life, some may not care, others who have no choice must deal with it as well and some can be psychologicly effected.
In this day and age some world leaders are so blinded by their so called "belife" that it leads to intolerance of others.