WAR WILL NEVER GO AWAY!

i have no #ing clue where to put this, but here goes


War will never go away as long as man exists and as long as god exist. so whats the use in protesting something that will never go away?


your thoughts

(christ i sound like jerry springer)

[Edited on 12-15-2003 by KrazyIvan]

[Edited on 12-15-2003 by KrazyIvan]

I think humankind is being brainwashed into thinking this, KrazyIvan.

Because that's what they want us to think, because it serves their goals.....and if we think it, and believe it, they've won!!

All it takes is a change in the mindset...the mind is a powerful thing, and if enough of us believe that this isn't true, then it won't be true.

War is over, if we want it!!!

brain washing? i dont think so. war has been around beginning.

I agree, as long as man is man then there will be war. As long as we still need and want, there will be war. War is inevitable, things fall apart, the center cannot hol...

*beaten senseless by copyright lawyers*

He's right, you know.

We are in aperfect balance of 'good' vs. 'evil'. What we believe to be good will always be at war with what we believe to be evil and thus the world remains in balnce. Notice that no side (well, good and evil are really flimsy terms, may I say. What one considers good could be evil to anpother but everyone HAS a sense of good and evil which is why I use them) has ever won. Thus, wars will continue to pop up at any time or anyp place for petty reasons. But with this being said then we may as well choose a side and fight for it. It's all part of nature. Some will notice this problem and be pacifists, choosing no side what so ever. Others will be strong headed and continue to fight for whatever side it is. It's just nature. It's a type of Taoist belife. But, as always, we conyinue to fight for what we believe in because of hope. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
so whats the use in protesting something that will never go away?

Perhaps some people find comfort in knowing they put forth an effort to resist something that they believe to be counterproductive to peace. Compliance, please.

youll get compliance from me but i dont see the point in wasting the time

War is an inevitable force. As long as a species exists, there will always be disagreement. No two people are alike, and that will always bring conflict. Difference is natural, and there is nothing we can do about it. Protesting against war may bring people personal assurance, but nothing will be solved.

Originally posted by mystra
I think humankind is being brainwashed into thinking this, KrazyIvan.


War is over, if we want it!!!

I think its you who got brainwashed to believe the war can go away...

LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MAN KIND!!!

The idea of pacifism is a paradox.

It can't exist without a violent person or country allowing it to and protecting it as well.

Conflict is inevitable..
Its how this conflict takes place that can be changed.
Wars can be fought on many fronts and ideas.





[Edited on 16-12-2003 by WhoPlaysGod]

There will always be war? Nonsense. The only thing there will always be is thought. If we change the thought then we change the outcome. That's like saying the west could never be tamed. Back then you had beef--you took to the street. Now, that is unacceptable under the law. Law creates what is right and wrong. War should be the same in my opinion. It isn't noble and it isn't worth the price. All murder is wrong--there is no scale.

Another example of how women think. Worth being respected? Absolutely. Do I agree, NO WAY.

The fact that there will always be war is not really a point of conversation, it's fact.

Men operate under a specific hierarchy that differs depending on which place or situation we are in, it is the way we are built.

In a world this large, there can not be only one, that is too much power for any one group. So there will be war or at best conflict.

Women brough about the change that seeks create effeminate men, which is the reason boys are now lashing out in Columbines and such.

We are a conflict species. Women think it is wrong to think that way, but it it not, it is just different than you.

Jethro: I'm sorry but that's just silly. It's wrong to kill another human being. That's not feminine...to say that it is-is to call the ideas of Jesus feminine, or order feminine. What we all hope for as humans is safety, security, and longevity. No man alive in his right mind wants chaos or war. Conflict or disagreements are squashed everyday with compromise. You don't kill those you disagree with you. You work it out. If you could kill them you would but laws protect the people from deranged folk that think violence is an acceptable form of conflict resolution.

And, the world is already ruled by a select few that have too much power. I don't know what world you are living on but the Earth is damn small. Too damn small to run around advocating murder by any means available to solve conflicts because you are man and men kill--that's just unacceptable. Killing for any reason is insane, and if you don't believe me run out and kill a bunch of folk because you're a man. I'll come visit you in the mental hospital just to say, I told you so.

Saphronia, I agree with you murder is wrong and war is definately mass murder but it is justified when people will not tolerate your way of life. Some ideals can not be settled by compromise.

How do you compromise with extremist who despise people who do not agree with them and if you think you can change the way they think then your thinking just like they do.

Originally posted by Klash
Saphronia, I agree with you murder is wrong and war is definately mass murder but it is justified when people will not tolerate your way of life. Some ideals can not be settled by compromise.

How do you compromise with extremist who despise people who do not agree with them and if you think you can change the way they think then your thinking just like they do.

This reminds me of something I watched a few days ago. When a reporter asked what anti-war people would do to have 'solved' the problem in Iraq they had no answer for a peaceful solution.

So is it war is a more dramatic war to gain our acceptance or that we just don't feel like thinking a hard enough for a peaceful solution OR that there was no other way?

I find it funny that in order to make our point we have to sink to their level of fighting.

It's very difficult to explain but ne actually do need a constant battle. What would we have without a constant battle? In order to keep complete peace we'd need so many rules and so many controls that we'd be robbed of our own freedom of mind. We'd always be caught even if we had just cause in our minds for doing the wrong deed. (ex: you steal a perscription your wife needas to live b/c you don't have the money.) So as much as war and conflict is hated, we...

Eh, that made no sense.

What I find puzzling is that a man would leave his wife without so much as a glance back for the forces...

The idea that you uproot terror by uprooting governments is an idea that I don't support, but I hope it works since it's the chosen policy of our current president, and I do recognize there is a threat.

There will always be people willing to die for their "cause". These are criminals whether they be local or international matters little. There are systems of policing that could deal with terrorism. You don't send a whole army or kill a bunch of people to find 20,000. In the end you only increase the number of people you have to catch and capture.

Our terror problem could have been handled just as easy with intel as it was (or wasn't) with all out war. You can't force idealogy, but you can enforce law. We've got hundreds of thousands of troops out there to enforce law and all the while killing and destroying innocent folk in the process. It doesn't take bombs to uproot terror. I don't see the Saudi's using bombs and soldiers but they were able to catch or kill all the terrorist that attacked them. Same with the Turks.

If you buy the idea that war can solve our terror issues you haven't been paying attention. We don't even know if we are winning. The man in charge said as much. They make more than we can kill, and that doesn't even count the ones we make by murdering family members and children.

[Edited on 16-12-2003 by Saphronia]

and,

I'm not one that thinks Bush handled 9-11 well, he should have closed his mouth got his intel and kill Bin Laden without a word to Taliban or anybody. That's what great presidents do...you don't march around threatening war and give him a chance to get away. Why have CIA or spy planes or any of that garbage if you are going to put heavy boots on the ground and miss your chance to end the thing once and for all.

So if any murder is wrong why would you kill Osama, even if it was secretly?

"And eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind."-Ghandi

I didn't say kill Bin Laden, did we could have went in and captured him if we didn't tip our whole hand to the world--including Bin Laden who prolly watched the whole war via CNN.