It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do we love war?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:48 AM
I can only give you my Perspective, I live in one of the most isolated capital cities on Earth in Perth,Western Australia I feel safe though I have many Nuclear neighbous. India, Pakistan, North korea and Iran to name but a few. I do not fear these countries though I wish they would lay down the WMDs

Australia has no WMD's and I dont believe it needs them for defencce

Terrorism is a state of mind, To beat it will take a state of mind. I dont mean ignore it and carry about your lives. I mean the path to enlightenment and cooperation and common goals

If sticks and stones can break bones, then laying waste to countries is not going to solve the Psyche of the peoples in that country, I believe quiet the oposite .

One thing I have learnt is that humans are resiliant and if threatened increase in hostility, escalting in magnitude until the final winner emerges. Life is not a game of winners and loosers. It is a gift that needs to be nurtured

Love the World and the world will love you back
Plant a tree

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:01 AM
Just about every aspect of humanity, of the world actually involes conflict. War, fighting, combat is pure nature.

Look at the rhetoric. When we have a problem, we declare war on it, no matter what it is. It's always a war, a battleground, a conflict. Yes, being humans, we are obsessed with the concept of war...

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:02 AM
Dan, those are wise and joyous words, and therein lies the answer ..thank you

[edit on 7-11-2004 by c_au]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:04 AM

Even WWII had it's romance and intrigue. They knew who the bad guys were. The fought with rifle, knife and grenade. They 'shot and moved'. There were front lines drawn. The high-tech state of warfare totally obliterated the romance. No, we have no idea who the enemy is, or what he looks like. There are no lines drawn. He could be hiding in a city with a suitcase nuke, or worse.

There is no honor in the world anymore; no chivalry.

Do I like war; of course not. But I sure as hell love playing it on PS2 and the computer!!
Tell that to the ones who lost a father, brother and/or others. Tell it to the ones who fought in it. I think you are a bit too influenced by some movies. There is nothing romantic about war. Nothing romantic about fighting in it nor about being a victim of it.
Go read stories of soldiers who fought in the world wars, I think you will find out they did not like it that much. Seeing people getting blown into pieces, seeing people bleed to death, seeing people getting tortured and all that is not really romantic. Some movies glorify violence which is wrong.

Playing such games can be fun, I play them also. But while I play them, I still do not think of it as romantic. Playing the game is something different than the real thing.

Personally, I do have family killed in both WWs. I do have family who been in camps during WWII. Together with me there are many others who have also family/friends etc. who experienced this also. It is my opinion they do not think about it as "romantic".

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:07 AM
Romance in war? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think you've seen too many movies...

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by THX 1138
Sadly C_au the world dosn't view everything like the swiss do. When was the last time the swiss ever got in a war? If your looking for a peacefull rolemodel the Swiss are the ones. And what country has been in the most wars? Any one know?

The Swiss
they didnt get involved in wars just profited of them and the death of millions of jews. They took a good amount of Nazi blood money during WW2. Any country that stays neutral during a world war is a joke. What did they think the Nazis during there plans for world domination would just leave the Swiss alone if they won

I have more respect for the people of the axis then then swiss atleast they had the convictions to fight for what they believed in.
True. Completely agree. Though, since it involves people, you have to realize people are naieve. And the Germans were sometimes good in holding a nice vision in front of peoples eyes so they actually sterted to believe what those Germans were sayin. That is what happened ie. to a lot of young Flemish boys who were told Flanders would be independent after the war so they signed up for the German army after which they soon discovered that it was not their brightest idea and were sent to Russia to fight againt the Russians. In fact they were so good at it that they convinced a larger part of Germany that what they were doing was a right thing to do. And if they werent too convinced then there were of course the less peacefull or harmfull ways..

The Swiss where not totally alone either. Also King LeopoldIII of Belgium tried to avoid being into the war but also soon discovered that Hitlers word was not exactly what you could call honnest and respectfull.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Calibre]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:34 AM
All living things struggle, that's just the way it is. There is not a single living thing known that doesn't compete in some way or another with other living things.

Should you ever identify a form of life that is not somehow in competition with other life, be sure to preserve a sample of it, because you will have discovered a form of life about to become extinct.

We fight wars because that's one of the ways we we compete as societies -- one of the most common ways, in fact. As with all forms of life, societies rise and fall, dependent upon their ability to sustain themselves and compete against other societies.

There is not a single society on the planet that has not participated in violent warfare at some point or another in the past. There is no moral high ground on this issue, only sanctimonious hypocrisy foisted on the weak of mind.

History and biology make these things plain enough to anyone willing to study them.

Those who are the movers and shakers of the "peace movement" know all this quite well. They use "peace protesters" as tools of war.

All this "Make Love, Not War" business is a legacy of past psychological warfare operations. America's enemies don't want us to be able to fight. But that doesn't mean they don't want to fight.

It is good not to grow fond of war, but it is disastrous to fail to prepare for it.

Especially when war is already underway.

[edit on 11/7/2004 by Majic]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:09 AM
Oh my Gaia, Majic this is funny, you cant seriously believe this diatribe can you?
Animals kill others for food. Are you saying you are going to eat the victims of your wars. Competition in the animal kingdom doesnt always result in death. Different species co-habitate in all sorts of enviroments.
I think you must have a Scatoma to the solution that doesnt result in War. We after all have conquered all animal species on Earth and not all have been murdered yet.
There is always hope and optimism
Peace and Harmony

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:28 AM
If you watch a few of the wildlife documentaries they also kill over territorial issues and ranges, especially when the bounty is not plentiful.

There have even been film documented evidence of packs and prides attacking other groups to drive them off, and in some instances of almost seemingly deliberate opportunism to kill off the young of a competitor.

please don't start trying to quote the purity of the animal kindom to cite humanities actions as an abberation.

In times of plenty the contest is less brutal, but even then it still happens occassionally.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:42 AM
ok ... so if we didn't go into Iraq we would have died????????

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Dan West
Oh my Gaia, Majic this is funny, you cant seriously believe this diatribe can you?
Animals kill others for food.

Interesting but self-contradictory moral spiel snipped

The assumption that we are not animals is false. We are primates, and our close relationship to the community of Great Apes is something that can only be denied on religious doctrinal grounds, where we will part ways.

The fallacy of defining ourselves as non-animals has been explored at length in philosophies both ancient and modern, so I won't launch into the bulk of it here.

The short, short version is that it is paradoxical to claim that we are different from animals, and then use the behavior of animals as a moral guide for our behavior.

In other words, if we are animals, then we define animal morals by our nature. If we are not animals, then there is no sense whatsoever in comparing our behavior to that of animals, since by definition we are different from them.

So what this all comes down to is that sure, you can deny what we are, and sure I can attest to it, and we can go back and forth like that if you enjoy wasting time. Or we can agree that we differ on this topic.

A difference of opinion makes neither of us right or wrong. Rather, that is determined by the merits of our opinions as evaluated on an individual basis.

I presented mine, and stand by them.

[edit on 11/7/2004 by Majic]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 04:36 AM
Looking at history and the way the world is at the present, it seems that the belief that 'life is a war, a struggle' for whatever the reason - fear, greed, survival, competition etc is the prevalent belief.

Are you happy with this status quo? does this belief and the consequence of it contribute to your happiness and does it ensure your survival?

Being prepared for war may be 'necessary' in the times we're in, but defense is one thing and attack is another. What is the sense in making WMD in the interst of survival when this could lead to the annihilation of the planet as we know it?

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:32 AM
It would seem that the US cannot go for more than a decade without some kind of war whether it be the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs"; both of which are unwinnable unless some sociological changes occur not only in the US but throughout the world but that probably will not happen for a few decades or even centuries at the rate that we are developing (or regressing?

It is easy to declare war when you do not have to deal with the consequences first hand as soldiers do. Politicians do not have to worry about whether or not they will live to see tomorrow but rather, they leave the worries up to the populace and manipulate at will. Soldiers are nothing more than a political tool to get the job done.

There will always be wars in a world of intolerance because every person has their own opinion on any given topic. There will always be dissenting sides but without tolerance, we are forever cursed.


[edit on 11/7/2004 by Ethereal Visage]

[edit on 11/7/2004 by Ethereal Visage]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:51 AM
I feel for The souls lost from all over the World on the Attacks in America as I do for The Bali attacks. This is indeed of the most serious of Natures, I would like to pose A Question however.

How many countries have attacked the American Homeland?
How many countries has America attacked?

There is no easy way out of a difficult situation that is already underway. You must play with the cards that are dealt
The logic that we must have war because thats who we are I dont accept and I feel will be the one that keeps the So called war on Terror burning in the hearts of Humanity for many Decades to come

consider the First civillisations, they didnt gather together in the first cities for Protection and war, it was trade.

We do need a shift worldwide in the way we approach each other as Fictitious lines in the sand arnt the boundaries but culture and Ideologies
The rich tapestries of life
Monkeys dont do tapestry
and of course we are animals

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:00 AM
Playing Devils advocate here. Forget the man made laws and rules, forget religion.....lets talk natural science.

My comments on the animal kingdom got me to thinking. If animals are territorial and contest thier patch to the point of killing off the competition when there is not enough to go around.....

Is our tendency to go to war or even involve ourselves in domestic violence deep down instinctual ( I'm hoping not) We took what?.....100,000 years to hit the one billion people mark? and in the last hundred years we've added six billion more, and alot of people say the world is not coping.

Is the growing viciousness of the small wars and terrorism and growing domestic violence and other distgusting criminal behaviours a sign that the worst thing we ever did was invent the bomb, and not for most of the reasons we suppose?

We stave off death even in old age, we involve ourselves in doing what we can to minimise the impact of natural disasters, and struggle to end all the evils of the world. All very noble, decent, human and I support that but...

Are we supposed too.....or at the very least have we upset the balance?

Perhaps we have become so global as a species the world wars (and things like the 1919 Influenza Epidemic which followed them) is our instinctual and natural way of control.

And we have been doing our best to suppress them. The A-bomb has been the most effective suppresant of them all. Compare any equivelent period of modern history to WW2 and WW1.....have we ever come that close to killing off ourselves in war at that rate since Aug 6 1945?

Maybe this is instinct just boiling over? God....I beleived in deterence and MAD theory and even I wish we never split the Atom at the present

[edit on 7-11-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 7-11-2004 by craigandrew]

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I have noticed a growing divide here on ATS. It is starting to get even worse amoung the American members. There seems to be a growing opinion that war is good and makes you feel youthful and alive. Im not sure whats going on with the mentality of the US right now, but I know one thing is for sure, if we dont solve our differences now, S**t is going to hit the fan here in our homeland soon. So I want to know, What is it that turns people on to this war? Why do so many people approve of it? These questions go both ways also. If you dont agree with the warmongering, then why? If you dont approve of the war tell me why. One last thing. I am strictly talking about the war in Iraq.

Just so there is no slamming me for being below 18 for this post, you should know something about me. Im not 18, and I was in the first Gulf War. Im not just a young kid with an impressionable mind, I do have experience with the questions Im asking.

[edit on 11/5/04 by Kidfinger]

[edit on 11/5/04 by Kidfinger]

Kid, thank you for your part in the 1st Gulf war.

I am no kid, either. I entered the military at age 18, in 1982. I was not, and am not today, an advocate of war. War is not something any sane, rational individual would venture in to lightly. When I joined the military I was prepared for whatever came down the pike. The enemy was clear, our resolve was srong and our leadership was commited. There were many people then who were weak-willed and soft-kneed, both in the goverenment as well as in the citizenry, both here and abroad. Our strength in our leadership combined with the dedication of our servicemen won the day against the Soviet threat, in spite of the weak-kneed people, both in our own government and those citizens here and abroad.

Today, we face the same threat; an enemy who wants us dead and counts on weakness, both within this nation and abroad. To be willing to face the enemy is no sign of bloodlust or warmongering; it is only the determination of national survival. Do not allow the cowards of the world, no matter where they reside, convince you that being willing to face the dangers that confront us is some sort of love for war; it is not. This is merely the thoughts of cowards, this is merely the attempt of Chamberlain-ites trying to make true Americans doubt themselves.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Dan West

Terrorism is a state of mind, To beat it will take a state of mind. I dont mean ignore it and carry about your lives. I mean the path to enlightenment and cooperation and common goals

It wasn't enlightenment or groovy thoughts that attacked us three years ago. A state of mind did not kill a few thousand people. Richard Gere type notions only get people dead. We can't afford such nonsense as we are the targets of deadly people with their deadly ideologies.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:19 AM
Devils Advocate again.

Someone said "so if we never went to Iraq...would we still be dying over there?"

How about "if we never went to Iraq (and Afghanistan)....would we still be getting killed here like the people on 9/11 (or in Bali and Madrid)?"

What if the situations had been reversed?

What if George W Bush had not given in to his personal ambitions and had "good" counsel and taken it on the two lots of conflicting intelligence relating to Iraqs connections with AQ and its WMD programmes, especially the biggie...Nukes......and not attacked Iraq?

and what if in say 2006 or 2007 it turned out both had been true.

Religious hardliners and fanatics with a nuke carrying merchie sails into NY or Boston and Scream "Praise Allah" push the tit.....where would we have been then.

Personally I didnt beleive the WMD or AQ link stories, even though I had supported the war for other reasons.

But I was still shocked when I phoned my sister in Perth on 9/15. She was in High school at the tail end of Vietnam and opposed the war. But while I slept in Brisbane she watched 9/11 live via satalite and it happened so quick her 11 and 8 year old saw it too. AQ was already being pointed to and she knew they were working out of Afghanistan according to the media, and my anti war sister said "I hope they turn that place into a lake"

Like I said, if the intell had been right, where the hell would we have been?

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:21 AM
Imagine in a few years when we hit 20 billion
Greed one of the deadly sins has us believing we can cheat death through longer life and that would include saving that 16 or 22 week prem baby.
There is not just gonna be more of us but we will think ourselves entitle to live 100 years

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 06:25 AM
praise crownes optimism, for it is the sign of true leadership in times of turmoil. turmoil we have created, forged, harbored, actualized, and composed. one that will not go away anytime soon, we should praise crownes optimism, for it will be the blinding beacon of hope securing our path of devistation!

good grief

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in