Do you think its right to go to war?

[Xendance]

For homework, I have to ask 10 people. Theres no better place than here at halflife2.net So guys, do you think its right to go to war? Please leave your age and a comment about your reason.

edit: oh poo, mod please move this to correct forum. Silly me

 

[Kester^]

It depends on the reasoning, what a stupid question.

 

[Rapstah]

No.

Seventeen.

Because people die.

 

[Maxi]

No, it's never right to go to war. Unless someone invades you that is, then it's kind of mandatory?

Age 19.

 

[Kester^]

They're both such narrowminded answers. Like I said the question doesn't take into account all the thousands of reasons that go into making the decision to go to war. You cannot say war should never happen because people die, because with that reason almost everything would be banned.

War can be justified, and in those cases I have no problem with war. Yeah it's a bad thing that people have to die, but if those people didn't want to risk their lives they shouldn't have joined the army.

Age 22.

 

[DjBourgeoisie]

War should not happen but it always will as for why or if it is justified there is no right or wrong answer to that.

Using Iraq as an example, I have mixed feelings about should we have gone but now that we are there I feel I should support it. When WW2 happened we went to war and nobody really in their right mind would argue we should have gone for numerous reasons. Take Afganistan, by all means yes I think we should have gone, we were attacked by the worlds most notorious terrorist organization and that is where they reside.

Is there any right answer as I said no of course not, it depends on the individual, and I agree with Kester, if you dont want to fight you should never join the military, those in it for a steady paycheck should have thought about the possibity of going to war in the first place. When I graduated high school I was considering signing up with the Marines to go to iraq the first time we went however the war was over before I even spoke to a recruiter. I am glad I did not now, theres much more money working in technology

Age 32

 

[Xendance]

Well thank you for your replies. I hope to see more

 

[Rapstah]

My point was that people die, not generic soldiers that actually know their lives are at risk.

Civilians, that is.

 

[Xendance]

Does a tree that falls in an empty forest make a sound?

Did you get that off the simpsons by any chance?

 

[Dodo]

...Do you think its right to go to war?

It's a bit like asking if its oke to have sex with a horse, ... if youre a horse yourself it fine, but if youre a dirty little perverted human it's just wrong...
note: sorry, im talking bs. :smoking:

-dodo (18)

 

[Zunni]

Do I think it's right to go to war?

Since the question is so open-ended (as others have mentioned) I'll add more detail to my answer just to mess with your teachers mind.

If someone threatened my family, my children, my parents or my country, is it ok to try to stop them from harming them or harming others? Absolutely.
So in that particular case, it's right.

If there was proven justification of evil (as in an intent to harm others) or a significant history of hurting others? Absolutely.

However, there are many things such as not liking a persons religion, colour, sex, age, or even their face that is certainly not motivation to fight a war. That's not to say that wars haven't been started over less. Just that I believe those wars were started in error.

Follow up with us when you find out what your teachers point is, I'd love to know what s/he's trying to illustrate with this exercise.


Mark - Age 32.

 

[Ennui]

Moved to OT, since Politics would turn it into a big shitfest

My response? No. Never, based on principle, because war can never be anything but one of the greatest of all evils. Unfortunately, given our present civilization, it appears that sometimes we must do things that aren't right and therefore go to war on occasion. As far as I'm concerned, though, it's only justified in extreme cases (see Hitler) and not in most others (see Iraq, Iraq: The Sequel, Vietnam, Korea, WWI, etc). Idealistically speaking I hope for a society where war isn't necessary, even if it's a long way off yet, because until then we'll never get anywhere.

Age: 17.

 

[Solaris]

I agree with Ennui.
age 17.

 

[<RJMC>]

<music>
"WAR"
"what is it good for?"
"aaabsoluting nothing!"
"oh yeah!"
<music>

now seriously
it depends on the circustances like people hav said
but is like crime,it happens and will continue to happen
unles we evolve in a super society where we all agree whit eachother and have orgys all the time
and since that future dont look so close them I think there is not such a good answer to this

age 18

 

[PvtRyan]

Of course, because war is AWESOME! Don't listen to the "war is hell" bullshit, that was a translation error, the correct phrase was "war is hella cool!".

 

[Vegeta897]

because until then we'll never get anywhere.

Ok, we've had war since the beginning of mankind, and you're telling me that we haven't gotten anywhere?

Hmmm...

And your theory has a flaw anyway. Who decides "extreme cases" ? So we should let anyone in the world do whatever they want unless it's genocide? Humans by nature fight, humans are evil. Hell, any creature in the universe can have conflict, what you're daydreaming about is completely impossible. It's like you're taking the second 2 out of "2 + 2 = 4" you can't do it.

Harsh and sucky as it is, that's how the universe works.

For the record I agree with your side in general, war is hell, and I wish it wasn't necessary but it is.

 

[Solaris]

Ok, we've had war since the beginning of mankind, and you're telling me that we haven't gotten anywhere?

Hmmm...

And your theory has a flaw anyway. Who decides "extreme cases" ? So we should let anyone in the world do whatever they want unless it's genocide? Humans by nature fight, humans are evil. Hell, any creature in the universe can have conflict, what you're daydreaming about is completely impossible. It's like you're taking the second 2 out of "2 + 2 = 4" you can't do it.

Harsh and sucky as it is, that's how the universe works.

For the record I agree with your side in general, war is hell, and I wish it wasn't necessary but it is.

Actually, ennuis being more intelligent there than you might think. If I understand him right, what he's getting at is that capitalism purveys war and imperialism. Whenever there is capitalism there will be war, war will be a very rare occurrence if we had a different social-economic system.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Another interesting question, which I think you should add into your essay would be:
"Is it right to give yourself, and your country a reason to go to war?"

I say this because people generally focus on the negative aspects of why you should go to war, and yet forget the postive aspects of not going in the first place. Would more people have died under Saddams regime than if we had invaded?

It is a fact that the CIA has instigated the majority of 20th century conflicts, either by accident or on purpose.
It is also possible to cause inflictions on your own infrastructure and populace and blame it on a foreign power, or like I said with the CIA, have a 3rd party to cause problems to get 2 different countries to go to war.

Other things that you could look at:
-Operation Northwood (Diclassified Material on giving a reason to invade Cuba)
-"The Sum of all Fears" (Neo-Naziz fascists causing a terrorist attack in US to cause US and Russia to goto war)

Age 21

 

[Tyguy]

You cant say its never ok to go to war yet make exceptions....

Face the unfortunate fact that war is a necessity in our present civilization....

 

[clarky003]

I agree, Capitalisim facilitates war, as much as people would like to think it's all about this ideaology of good versus evil, in reality it's all about the interests of the people in charge of the main cartels that facilitate war, such as the military industrial complex and of course the federal reserve bank who are immediate benifactors of the extra cash flow.

Absolute power always corrupts and I think people are nieve or misinformed about economics if they can't see what's happening. This fiat monitary system has been manipulated into funnelling an unbalanced amount of wealth back to the elite classes in charge of these cartels, which in turn facilitate the need for more wars to keep this cycle going.

I mean we hear about Bill Gates and think he's rich, but my god did you know the Rockerfeller and Rothchild family and alike own over 55% of the worlds wealth amongst themselves? some of these families/ and people are worth over $400 trillion, families who set up fort knox, the federal reserve and the like, these are the real time players.

 

[repiV]

I agree, Capitalisim facilitates war, as much as people would like to think it's all about this ideaology of good versus evil, in reality it's all about the interests of the people in charge of the main cartels that facilitate war, such as the military industrial complex and of course the federal reserve bank who are immediate benifactors of the extra cash flow.

Absolute power always corrupts and I think people are nieve or misinformed about economics if they can't see what's happening. This fiat monitary system has been manipulated into funnelling an unbalanced amount of wealth back to the elite classes in charge of these cartels, which in turn facilitate the need for more wars to keep this cycle going.

I mean we hear about Bill Gates and think he's rich, but my god did you know the Rockerfeller and Rothchild family and alike own over 55% of the worlds wealth amongst themselves? some of these families/ and people are worth over $400 trillion, families who set up fort knox, the federal reserve and the like, these are the real time players.

kathaksung say:

you even more kooky than me...

 

[clarky003]

What? it's true, if you follow the money the Rothchilds and Rockerfellers own over 55% of the worlds wealth, and created the fiat monitary system through creation of privitised reserve banks, instead of having physical gold silver in use, it essentially gives them the liscence to create a controlled flow of wealth.

I mean, does anyone actually know what a dollar is? I'll give you a cookie

 

[repiV]

What? it's true, if you follow the money the Rothchilds and Rockerfellers own over 55% of the worlds wealth, and created the fiat monitary system through creation of privitised reserve banks, instead of having physical gold silver in use, it essentially gives them the liscence to create a controlled flow of wealth.

I mean, does anyone actually know what a dollar is? I'll give you a cookie

Making unsubstantiated claims is one thing. Presenting borderline conspiracy theories as fact whilst having a history of saying stupid things makes it impossible to take you seriously.
As if the "without capitalism we would have no war!" crap wasn't bad enough (espoused by one of the biggest warmongers...sorry, "wannabe revolutionaries" here, no less).

 

[Kyorisu]

Because people die.

People die all the time. War is the only cause of death and there are usually good reasons for raging war. WWII set good and bad examples of war at the same time.

 

[Absinthe]

This question is too black and white. It depends on the causes and reasons.

Self-defense is the obvious one. If you hit me, I'll hit you back, and I'll make damn sure you don't feel the inclination to ever try it again in the future. But I can also support preemptive strikes. As much as I like diplomacy and the avoidance of bloodshed, I am all for an invasion if some sadistic nut with an expressed intent of massacre gets close to obtaining nukes. Humanitarian issues? In a perfect world (yes, I know it's a contradiction) I would support global intervention if there was some assurance that people wouldn't completely cock it up (ie. Iraq).

I am of the opinion that war is an inevitability. It will always persist throughout our time in different forms. So long as people are capable of violence, there will always be the potential waiting to be realized. And sometimes it is absolutely necessary.

Age: 19

 

[clarky003]

Making unsubstantiated claims is one thing. Presenting borderline conspiracy theories as fact whilst having a history of saying stupid things makes it impossible to take you seriously.
As if the "without capitalism we would have no war!" crap wasn't bad enough (espoused by one of the biggest warmongers...sorry, "wannabe revolutionaries" here, no less).

I lol'd, it's not a conspiracey that the Rothchilds are worth about ?400 trillion and backed the creation of the federal reserve bank in the US and similar systems elsewhere. I never said war wouldn't still exist, and don't be ridiculous war profiteering is still a contributing factor and driving force behind war. Your in no position to say anything I've stated is false do some research into the creation of the federal reserve, just follow the money.

Oh and by the way do you even know the definition of a dollar?

 

[repiV]

I never said it wouldn't still exist, and don't be ridiculouse war profiteering is still a contributing factor and driving force behind war. Your in no position to say anything I've stated is false do some research into the creation of the federal reserve, just follow the money.

Oh and by the way do you even know the definition of a dollar?

You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that your wild and far-out claims are true. You're also a conspiracy looney.
It's not my job to prove you incorrect.

By the way, did you know the universe is really run by giant ants?

 

[clarky003]

Great argument, so basically summed up your ignoring the fact that the Rotchilds and Rockerfellers own 55% and 25% of the worlds wealth respectively and had a dab hand in creating the modern cash flow system, and instead call someone you don't even know a conspiracey looney when you havn't even researched it yourself.

Think whatever you want but it's documented fact, look it up yourself. You still havn't answered the question, even though you seem to know so much more about the economy than me.

 

[repiV]

Great argument, so basically summed up your ignoring the fact that the Rotchilds and Rockerfellers own 55% and 25% of the worlds wealth respectively and had a dab hand in creating the modern cash flow system, and instead call someone you don't even know a conspiracey looney when you havn't even researched it yourself.

Think whatever you want but it's documented fact, look it up yourself. You still havn't answered the question, even though you seem to know so much more about the economy than me.

I don't need a great argument - you haven't even provided an argument to counter, and with your track record of being a nutcase, I have no reason at all to trust your word.

Besides:

The combined wealth of the (Rockefeller) family - its total assets and investments plus the individual wealth of its members - has never been known with any precision. In 1992, family members estimated it to be between US$5 billion to $10 billion. The records of the family archives relating to both the family and individual members' net worth is closed to researchers.

Sure doesn't look like 25% of the world's wealth to me. Funny also how Illuminati/New World Order conspiracy theories top the google results for this shit...yawn.

 

[clarky003]

has never been known with any precision. In 1992, family members estimated it to be between US$5 billion to $10 billion. The records of the family archives relating to both the family and individual members' net worth is closed to researchers.

I assume you got that off wiki, that's not their net worth that's a family statement. I've seen far higher estimates for the Rockerfeller's.

Weither you think there is a 'conspiracey' or not the Rothchilds own the most of the worlds prestigious banks, they hardly feature in any mainstream media but they are there.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article56047.ece

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild03.htm

Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today’s dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!

Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:

$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%)
$7.8 trillion US (@ 5%)
$31.5 trillion US (@ 6%)
$125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%)
$491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)

To give these figures some perspective consider these benchmarks:

*

A little of $300 billion US buys every ounce of gold in every central bank in the world (see John Kutyn’s estimate http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest/kutyn111597.html).
*

U.S. M3 money supply August 1997 was $5.2 trillion
*

U.S. debt is currently $5.4 trillion.
*

U.S. GDP (1997; 2nd Q.) is $8.03 trillion.
*

George Soros’ empire is worth an estimated $20 billion.

We shall never have a full accounting of their wealth. All we can go on is Morton’s (1962) comment that their wealth is "ineffable as always." Even our conservative estimates suggest a family with staggering wealth and thus influence. In a world awash in debt and unsustainable fiat currencies subject to implosion, the power of gold and the preference of the Rothschilds to gold cannot be easily ignored.

Whatever your viewpoint the US federal reserve is an unconstitutional organisation, congress has no say in it's function and decisions and as of 2003 M3 statistics from the federal reserve are not allowed to be disclosed.

It's quite simple and because you can't seem to get the main point through your head and instead feel the need to focus on me apparently being crazy lol. There is no conspiracey, it's not even secret, it's plain to see a valid constitutional monitary system in the US has been replaced with a fiat system controlled by a privatised and secretive federal reserve.

 

[Dan]

Yeah it's right to go to war if you are a powerful country, but you better have a good idea of what you stand to gain and what you stand to lose and how it's going to end.

If you are an individual, then no it is a bad idea. Like in "All quiet on the Western Front", war isn't one country against another, it's the old generals and leaders killing all the young soldiers. Sending others to die is the biggest hypocracy there is.

 

[repiV]

I assume you got that off wiki, that's not their net worth that's a family statement. I've seen far higher estimates for the Rockerfeller's.

Weither you think there is a 'conspiracey' or not the Rothchilds own the most of the worlds prestigious banks, they hardly feature in any mainstream media but they are there.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article56047.ece

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild03.htm



Whatever your viewpoint the US federal reserve is an unconstitutional organisation, congress has no say in it's function and decisions and as of 2003 M3 statistics from the federal reserve are not allowed to be disclosed.

It's quite simple and because you can't seem to get the main point through your head and instead feel the need to focus on me apparently being crazy lol. There is no conspiracey, it's not even secret, it's plain to see a valid constitutional monitary system in the US has been replaced with a fiat system controlled by a privatised and secretive federal reserve.

So when you actually are making an effort to prove your point, the best you can come up with is "estimates" and some weird Spanish site nobody has ever heard of?

 

[clarky003]

Now your just being pedantic, they have shares in every major bank in the world yet your labelling this as some kindof conspiracey. They dabble in oil companies around the world aswell, Russian and all.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031102-111400-3720r.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax-exempt_foundations

* The following are some comments on the 1958 412-page Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene A. Wormser, which was first published by the Devin-Adair Company of New York (Reprinted Covenant House Books, 1993):[1]

"In 1952, Congress commissioned the Cox Committee to investigate U.S. foundations. In 1953 it was the Reece Committee, and the author of this book was its general counsel. Wormser concedes that 'the emphasis on a search for organized Communist penetration of foundations absorbed much of the energy of the investigators and detracted somewhat from the efficacy of their general inquiry into subversion.' (page 177). He is more interested in an emerging elite that has control of gigantic financial resources: 'An unparalleled amount of power is concentrated increasingly in the hands of an interlocking and self-perpetuating group. Unlike the power of corporate management, it is unchecked by stockholders; unlike the power of government, it is unchecked by the people; unlike the power of churches, it is unchecked by any firmly established canons of value.' (page viii)[2]

"Forty years later, it's clear that Wormser's concerns over foundations were not misplaced; they still wield enormous political and cultural power. It's also clear that Congress should have worried more about the U.S. secret state than about Communism. The connections between intelligence elites, and the international programs funded by major foundations such as Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller, are quite amazing and deserve their own book."[3]

The fact that they are able to keep their wealth secret and is most likely due to the fragmented nature of their buisness and dealings, we won't ever no their true net worth as they have an arm and a leg in everywhere you look. But it's pretty obvious to assume they are worth a hell of alot just from inflation estimates as to their worth back in the 1900's.

Most of this I've read in books, some modern copies dated back to the late 1900's.

My main point anyway to get back to the topic, you can't simply deny war profiteering isn't a major motivating factor for wars.

 

[repiV]

Now your just being pedantic, they have shares in every major bank in the world yet your labelling this as some kindof conspiracey. They dabble in oil companies around the world aswell, Russian and all.

I could have shares in every major bank and oil company in the world for all you know...what would that prove exactly?

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031102-111400-3720r.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax-exempt_foundations



Most of this I've read in books, some modern copies dated back to the late 1900's.

My main point anyway to get back to the topic, you can't simply deny war profiteering isn't a major motivating factor for wars.

You can't demonstrate that it is, either. So I guess you're outta luck.

 

[Solaris]

"It's in a book, it must be true!"
/milhouse

 

[Shift]

Yes, because we cannot stop it

As long as mankind exists, there will be wars

 

[Seppo]

war is embarassing and not cool. too bad morons exist (i'm not one ofc)

 

[Kester^]

If you want peace, prepare for war.

 

[Ennui]

Someone mind explaining to me what the **** clarky and repiV are arguing about, and more importantly why it's in this thread? Stick to the topic and stop squabbling over... whatever the hell it is you're squabbling over.

Ok, we've had war since the beginning of mankind, and you're telling me that we haven't gotten anywhere?

Hmmm...

And your theory has a flaw anyway. Who decides "extreme cases" ? So we should let anyone in the world do whatever they want unless it's genocide? Humans by nature fight, humans are evil. Hell, any creature in the universe can have conflict, what you're daydreaming about is completely impossible. It's like you're taking the second 2 out of "2 + 2 = 4" you can't do it.

Harsh and sucky as it is, that's how the universe works.

For the record I agree with your side in general, war is hell, and I wish it wasn't necessary but it is.

I am pretty much of the opinion that we should let everyone in the world do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't adversely affect anyone else, and that we need to work towards a society where that is possible. Also, I think you missed my point. I have two opinions: idealistic and realistic. Idealistic is what I feel we as a race should work towards (no matter how distant or hard to imagine), and what I work towards, and realistic is how I integrate that idealism into the real world as effectively as I can without sacrificing the core values behind it. Idealistically, and I do believe this is possible given a different social environment (something that's not going to happen for thousands of years I expect), war would be eliminated entirely. However, that gets into my whole idealistic transcendentalist super-future that I don't want to waste time explaining here, but I think you get the idea as far as it pertains to this discussion.

Realistically, war is unavoidable - not a necessity, but not something we can get away from at the moment, pay attention to that distinction - in our current state, but that doesn't mean we should just accept that and resign ourselves to it. We obviously still have plenty of room for improvement given the enormous amount of frivolous, mindless bloodshed happening around the world right now that has nothing to do with any sort of good cause.

As for 'getting somewhere', circumstances change. We've come a long way since we were monkeys. Let's go a little further. War has no place in the pinnacle of human existence... which is why I fear that we'll never make it, though that's for a lot of other reasons as well.

Actually, ennuis being more intelligent there than you might think. If I understand him right, what he's getting at is that capitalism purveys war and imperialism. Whenever there is capitalism there will be war, war will be a very rare occurrence if we had a different social-economic system.

Without your anti-capitalist twist, this is quite true. However, I don't particularly think that communism lends itself as a feasible socioeconomic alternative, either, so I don't want it construed that way - perhaps advanced global communism to the point where leadership evaporates and it really just becomes a true blanket anarcho-communist society, but that's just Marx's wet dream.

Face the unfortunate fact that war is a necessity in our present civilization....

All you're doing is making the cement dry and harden faster by blowing on it like that.

Yes, because we cannot stop it

As long as mankind exists, there will be wars

Again, this is where I disagree. How can anyone deign to authoritatively state axiomatical facts about the human race like that? It just makes you look stupid because no-one is capable of making that sort of judgement. We live in an infinitely small portion of time; you cannot make ANY statements about the future of our race.

Hell, look at what people 50 years ago thought this new century would be like? They were rather off in their ideas, weren't they? That's only 50 years... that's nothing. What about 300? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? I'm not speaking in any small scale here... I merely believe that war can be eliminated at some future stage in human social and individual development, and we should do as much as we can to usher that point in faster rather than stave it off for as long as we can, as we seem to be doing right now. We'll never see it either way, but we could at least marginally improve our own lives while we're working to help the future.

As far as war today is concerned, I think Hemingway said it nicely - some of you may recognize this from Call of Duty 2's death quotes:

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."

 

[CptStern]

war is seldom about defending freedom it's almost always a means to an end ..whether land aquisition, subjugation of the populace or because of ideology, it's rarely benefical to anyone except those that profit from it ...lately it's the profiteers who create war as a means of lining their own pockets rather than the defense of an ideology. So no, war is rarely justifiable