meaning of war?

[The Avon Lady]

Noch a nacht.

[micky1up]

war isnt caused by religion , the people going to war use religion as an excuse to go to war or persuade ppl to go to war or bend to the will of the waring factions . make love not war is my moto oh and also death to all squirrels

[P_Funk]

War means different things to different people.

To the average man war is a directive. It is what the eldars say the young must do.

To the powerful, war is a means to an end. War has always been about economics. Territory, resources, politics, population. THe powerful use war to create power through wealth, often by stealing it or trying to steal it from others. Even the crusades weren't truly about faith. The great carts of booty carried back to Europe say it all.

To a father it means the end of the family, to a mother it means the death of her son.

We can choose to see war as what we want. Only those who have experienced it themselves can truly know what war is about.

I prescribe to the Edwin Starr school of thought. If you don't know what I mean just listen to the song.

We can all agree that there has to be a better way.

[kiwi_2005]

make love not war is my moto oh and also death to all squirrels

IN New Zealand its Death to all possums! 40 million and counting.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

We can all agree that there has to be a better way.

Not always.

[Damo1977]

'Meaning of war'????????

Pointless question, unless you want revenge, than the cycle is repeated. Plus like my old man taught me the only ones that suffer during wars are the normal, ordinary people. Never the rich!!!

[gdogghenrikson]

Originally Posted by Damo1977

'Meaning of war'????????

Pointless question, unless you want revenge, than the cycle is repeated. Plus like my old man taught me the only ones that suffer during wars are the normal, ordinary people. Never the rich!!!

yup

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Sure. The Allies didn't win and the Nazis didn't win. It was a tie!

Rhetoric.

Too much free time on your hands, Kaptain? :hmm:

Yes, the Allies gained the right to participate in a protrated Cold War, costing hundreds of trillions of dollars, the lives of countless men, women and children, and resulting in the near destruction of the entire world. True, as the defeated, Germany became the battleground, so in that regard the Allies, as mere participants, 'won'. However, that seems a shallow victory in the course of mankind. History shows us that one never truly wins.

Kaptain is infering that in war are always losers, who will ultimately seek to regain what was lost in the previous war. This, of course, leads to new wars and wars of greater frequency, resulting in what can be seen as one continuous state of war with relatively brief periods of peace. Thus, war fuels itself.

[Kapitan]

i was refering to a nuclear war the true nature of war is to serve a political mean but the role of war is to serve its self

yet in nuclear war the only enamy is war because both sides cannot win

[Takeda Shingen]

Ah, I see, then. I was impressed with what I thought was a journey into the realm of the profound, but a big 'nevermind' to that now. It is obvious that if you kill everyone, then no one can reap the spoils.

Besides, with all men gone, war would be without a vessel with which to serve itself.

[Excalibur Bane]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

i was refering to a nuclear war the true nature of war is to serve a political mean but the role of war is to serve its self

yet in nuclear war the only enamy is war because both sides cannot win

Precisely the reason why a nuclear war simply won't happen, assuming the world's various countries retain the services of sane rules anyway. Nuclear weapons for the most part are useless for anything but complete and total destruction of an enemy, which is counter productive, since it destroys any tangible gains of territory, resources, etc.

We are a world gripped by fear and paranoia, which is only culled further by our various leaders to fuel a contant state of nuclear readiness, which in my opinion, is utterly pointless.

The only people stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon are those who simply have nothing left to lose, and aside from terrorists, there is very few other groups or nations that are like that at the moment that I know of.

Anyway, if we managed to come to terms with the fact that these are just never going to be used in a war, we would do the sensible thing and disarm them. If we used the funding that the collective world spends on maintaining, constructing and keeping nuclear missiles ready to fly in there silos for something more constructive, say space, we might actually start advancing on some scientific fronts.

Personally, I'd rather see more progress being made toward the stars. Be nice to have something other then a fairly useless ISS that is currently in orbit.

[TteFAboB]

You don't want to get rid of Earth's nuclear arsenal and explore space at the same time, what are you going to do once you chart the 1047530 10+km wide Asteroids that are heading to Earth at this moment?

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

"war is a continuation of politics by other means" von closwitz

but the true meaning of war is to serve its self right?

in war the only true enamy is war so no one can win

whats your views ?

Alright, someone's been watching Crimson Tide.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. - von Clausewitz again.

Sadly it does seem the only time countires come together truly to help each other is when they're blowing the crap outta some other poor bugger. I do think war is a necessary evil but whats with all this crap I read in the papers to do with war being illegal? Am I the only one who finds this idea hilarious?

Frenchie

[August]

Originally Posted by gdogghenrikson

yup

Not exactly true. There are plenty of examples of rich people being killed and wounded during wars.

[Kapitan]

yea crimson tide watched it thats the meaning of the post