One war leads to another then by what you say because the way WWI ended it only lead into WWII.As long as nations or even groups feel a threat to their hegemony they will wind up in a war sooner or later seems to me.How many wars occur in just one life time too many to count on all your fingers and toes.

Would you like to run through the issues of neutrality and shipping during that conflict?
Would you like to run through modern issues of neutrality and shipping during conflicts to get a gauge of consistancy through history?

Read what I wrote about the 4.

I wasn't without warning.

Steve, would you like to join soopaman in a geography lesson?

1&2 already done, impunity is impunity or it isn't impunity.

Last time we dealt with this topic the details were brought up.

That wasn't you being quoted, have you made claims like those quoted?

Those examples are pure nonsense to measure the level of nonsense in the specific claim they were directed at.

Both failed and no one won, so who are you directing that at?

Spot on, if you want to nail the actual start of it all...well...you'd probably have to go back to Roman times, if not earlier. Start of human history perhaps, war is something we excel at, and is a double edged sword (pardon the pun).

I would say on a large scale at least to the Greeks and Persians.

It goes back much further than that. War has been a part of the human experience since forever.

I am aware of that which is why I said large scale the "stone age" type fighting more than likely mostly consisted of small skirmishes between groups you need an organized nation state to really have a large army.The Egyptians and Babylonians where the first to have large some what organized armies but they only fought mostly regional battles.The Greeks and the Persians where the first to have large armies that consisted at least partly of full time professionals and also to fight major conflicts that lasted years even decades.

Since humans started cultivating land. Somehow when we were hunter-gatherers there was enough land and food, but when we started growing our own food wars arose.

I think before that what happens when two opposing hunter-gatherers wind up competing for the same resources? They shook hands? I doubt it.Now if one guy has fish and you have venison you will trade if you both want venison someone is getting an atl atl arrow to the face.

The groups that took longer to become cultivators(or that never did) are the ones that lost out in the long run because the societies that could produce their on food rather than forage where able to have full time warriors and full time farmers the hunter-gatherers they lacked this luxury so the hunter-gatherers got dominated by the farmers.

Ever read "Guns,Germs and Steal"?It is a very interesting book I used to discus this book with others in the military that had read it the author goes into great detail about this topic.For the hunter-gatherers combat was to be avoided if at all possible for the cultivators they where able to develop more advanced societies faster and therefore armies.Cultivation of food means that you produce an abundance of it which means that you can feed an army but you keep wanting more and more dominate those that are inferior get more land to cultivate build a bigger army.Of course it is a theory but it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Probibly killed eachother. Problem is defining when two groups of men fighting formed from a forrest brawl into a war. Most likely when they started fighting so they held a teritory and not just one dead animal

Probably so I imagine that most hunter-gather groups where fairy well spread out and knew of the others near by and probably respected each others land and traded it would probably have been a harsher than normal time that might cause a conflict two guys just fighting though I doubt they went out alone very often 4 or 5 can kill more game and bring it back more easily than one.

There's a new (not computer) wargame for The War of 1812 called "Amateurs, to Arms" (of course). I haven't tried it, but it looks good and seems to have had good reviews

http://www.clashofarms.com/

Looks good, but I wouldn't pay half what they're asking for it.

It has a lot to do with the fact that people (let's call them "Group A") settled and started storing food instead of just consuming it and wandering in search for it. Then the other people ("Group B") figured out that there is lots of food in one place and that it might be easier to steal it from there.

So then Group A found out they need to be more organized to defend their food (and other stuff, the settlements were pretty obvious targets.) And Group B imagined they need to be more organized to have a chance against organized defense. And it went on and on.

I think organized fighting started long before that. Remember the human capacity for greed and revenge. That single stolen kill can easily escalate into a clan war that results in the utter destruction of one side or the other.

Very good point. This was the age of enlightenment! We got better at blowing each other up, and republics was the new fad.

With gentlemen philosophers, came improved artillery and ironclads.

Britain was fooling around with Napoleon, and we saw an opening, with valid pretense mind you. Many men died in Europe with Nappys wars.

Then the American Civil War came about. 600k paid the price. But a good price (albeit sad, I find it pathetic many people would still go for slavery today), we in America are still fighting it. Some folks in the southern states still refuse to let it go 160-170 years later. And us in the northern states still make fun of them (tease) for it.:D (at least you know how the indians felt, maybe you can get casino funds too) Joking, it's crude, I know!
(you all know I am a jerk, it is mostly unintentional though)
WW1 seemed to be the last throes of Empire (Kaiser=Ceasar), and the point where the monarchist system began to die.

All these troubles seemed to have ended when monarchist families were minimized by the more people/vote oriented democratic systems that came about after WW1. (or at least became more common)

Go ahead and blast me about WW2, I blame Neville, and a brutal France on the treaty of Versaille. for that farce. Not monarchists, or republics.

Where are we today? Hand in hand. As time went on we realized we had alot in common despite out differences. :)

Very late edit: Me and Steves Geography is fine, maybe your viewpoint is the one that needs adjusting?
(Funny an Irishman, taking a Brits side, at least to me, they were way worse to you guys, than us)