Common now let's discuss this important issue.

My position is no, only if problems are solved in individual level. What do I mean? Well if some idiot killed someone outside the law what would you expect to happen? Firstly you would expect the law to prove he is guilty, once that is proven you would expect a punishment for that individual.

What we are doing is that we are making the situation more complicated by invading countries for the sake of bringing one perpetrator to justice. Even if a state attacked another state, still war is not necessary, because all war does is make the situation more complicated and more people are killed rather then saved. So really what is the point of war?

So what do you think? Can war be the means for peace?

My point once again: Problems should be solved at individual level. When masses collide it makes the situation ten times more difficult to solve. One by one.

I'd say violence is normally the way to get anything done. It practically works all the time if you don't get into "limited engagements". WW2 was total war.

However I say violence rather than just war. Our country was founded on violence and terrorism/treason. The winner is normally the ones who go all in on.

It's never the preferred way, but it certainly does all seem to lead there.

Sure it can.

When Obama declares martial law in the US, that legally declares America a war zone controlled and occupied by the military.

It means curfews, road bocks, people shot on sight, imprisoned indefinitely with no recourse to legal aid or a trial.

Only when Americans are being shot and rounded up, will there be peace.

Sure war brings peace.

The kind of peace you are going to find in your grave.

Originally posted by oozyism
Can't they be dealt with individually? At the end of the day killing an innocent being is wrong, right? Even religious people can admit to that, my point is why can't it be dealt with individually? Is it really not possible?

No.

Even reasoning with a single person breaks down when there is no arbitration or third party and they disagree. Who is this arbiter?

That's the question that can't be answered the same way twice.

Originally posted by oozyism
Very true, but wouldn't that save more lives? Send them to a gladiator stadium and let them rip each other to pieces if they don't want to solve their own problems in a rational manner.

How about that idea?

Again, who would run the stadium? Even if they took place in every country, money could easily be centralized into something like that and it would get very dangerous.

The media is a cut-throat game these days. Imagine it if they legalized that eh?

Originally posted by KrazyJethro


Again, who would run the stadium? Even if they took place in every country, money could easily be centralized into something like that and it would get very dangerous.

The media is a cut-throat game these days. Imagine it if they legalized that eh?

Who would run it? umm independent, or isn't that possible either? We have had the same warfare for so long now, it hasn't change. Is it wrong to think of other ways to solve problems instead of all in all? Is it wrong to give it a try? I wouldn't mind seeing Bush and Osama kill each other, they both have been responsible for sending other people's kids to fight individuals who they don't even know.

I mean how would you feel if I come to America and fight you, forgot sakes I don't even know you. I rather fight this ass who keeps coming behind my house trying to steal my cloths.

Originally posted by oozyism
So what do you think? Can war be the means for peace?

Okay I read your post, I'm just going to answer this simply by, "Not in the long term". Unless you want to destroy the others completely, winner takes everything, scorched earth, all or nothing, you know what I mean, probably what will happen anyway, armageddon.

Originally posted by oozyism
Who would run it? umm independent, or isn't that possible either? We have had the same warfare for so long now, it hasn't change. Is it wrong to think of other ways to solve problems instead of all in all? Is it wrong to give it a try?

You are framing the question wrong to have a realistic conversation (not trying to be rude). Social Security isn't really close to what it started out as. The New Deal and it's babies have been a rough hand and it's not a good time to have pie in the sky ideas.

The question is: who should pay what to whom and why?

I wouldn't mind seeing Bush and Osama kill each other, they both have been responsible for sending other people's kids to fight individuals who they don't even know.

I mean how would you feel if I come to America and fight you, forgot sakes I don't even know you. I rather fight this ass who keeps coming behind my house trying to steal my cloths.

As for the war business, understand that I would very rarely support global military intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that didn't need to be fought. Even still Congress allowed it and they preceded to fight it very poorly with very few big guns.

If you are going to fight, you'd better come to smash the other guys, not sit around their house trying to figure out why they don't like you and your silly government.

I'm sure many people will try to come here and fight us in the future. Our actions do not go unnoticed, since the beginning. I doubt it'll change now.

Violence begets violence.

Eternal peace on the other hand can be accomplished once the other side is obliterated from the face of the Earth as well as in history.

Originally posted by Unregistered
Violence begets violence.

Eternal peace on the other hand can be accomplished once the other side is obliterated from the face of the Earth as well as in history.

Violence will always exist...

That being said based on your first point there will always be violence therefore there will never be Eternal Peace.

One on One, is it not sufficient? If they can't solve the differences between them in rational manner between them or by the law, then let them fight each other.

How can war possibly lead to peace? The very act of war displaces the very possibility of peace.

It simply amazes me that no one has brought this up yet. I think the problem people are having, is that they are trying to limit the ideas of war and peace into chronological events.

As in:

We have war now, so that we may have peace later.

However, this is a logical fallacy. War and peace are not chronologically sound events. They are absolutes. The reason for this is quite obvious if one thinks about it: The dead remain dead. The contents of their lives from that point on are lost to time. Their future offspring cease to exist. Their future deeds never happen, and their potential imprint upon the course of events is nullified. What would have been, had we had peace, is changed forever due to war.

Those who have experienced, perpetrated, allowed war can never achieve peace, for war destroys peace in the process.

Those who have been on the receiving end of war; those that have lost friends, loved ones, even their own lives, will never know peace. War has already destroyed that peace for them.



I especially find laughable the comments about destroying a side completely to achieve peace. In what manner does that make any sense? Does anyone here seriously believe that the concept of war is so simple that it encompasses a single conflict between two sides? As in, once there are only Americans left, or once all the terrorist are gone, or once all the radicals are gone, no one will ever disrupt peace? Are we that stupid?

Until humanity forgets what it is to wage war, we will never know peace. Seeing some of the replies, and seeing what is happening in the world, I don't think that will ever happen.




I think the most pertinent thing ever said by a human being (recorded at least) pertaining to the actual ideal of peace is one by the very renown Mohandas Gandhi:

“There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.”

How many people here could honestly say that? I will be the first to admit that I could not. These are the words of a true pacifist. There are few who could truly understand them, fewer who could live by them, and even fewer still who could act upon them.

Originally posted by oozyism
I think I get what you are saying, you are saying war makes money, and that money is invested to make more war, to make money.

Is that the point?

Are you saying we are too deep in the loop hole to make a change?

While war makes money, I am saying that violence is unavoidable at this stage in the game and probably for a long time. It's no easy task to change a whole country's dynamic, let alone the world and human kind on top.

I am saying if you want to have a discussion, theory is irrelevant. Theory isn't debatable in absolutes.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro


While war makes money, I am saying that violence is unavoidable at this stage in the game and probably for a long time. It's no easy task to change a whole country's dynamic, let alone the world and human kind on top.

I am saying if you want to have a discussion, theory is irrelevant. Theory isn't debatable in absolutes.

A realist, there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, I understand...