I know that the title of this thread is sort of misleading, NO this isn't about Iraq or anything political, BUT hear me out. Since the beginning of history, wars have been waged, and fighting has been worshiped. From before the Spartans, the gladiators, and the modern day of UFC. (speaking of UFC, it's the closest thing to gladiators we have now days, and people demand more from it. Since they've added the newer rules to make it safer, I've noticed that less people enjoy it. Although it's still getting more and more popular as we realise that it's as close to satisfying our needs to kill will get.) People argue this frequently (but this is not the debate topic), but it seems as though violence is human nature. We are animals after all, and like any other animals, we have instincts. Like many, we fight to decide who gets what.
Only recently have we begun to call each other "kind sir" and decided upon pacifism. And since we stopped manufacturing pointy weapons and decided to take the technological route, we've had less time trying to kill ourselves, and more time to think of HOW we are going to kill ourselves. We've given birth to nuclear weapons, mass pollution, clear cutting, theories of robotic domination, and countless other 'bad things' (term used loosely, others may argue they are good things).
If it weren't for our new fascination with politeness, we would still be manufacturing pointy sticks and sharp rocks, because we would be focused on satisfying our thirst for fighting, and not our progress through technology for a robotisized and polluted future.

My real question here is, do you think that if we decided to take the war route, instead of the gentleman route, we could solve all our problems (with the exclusion of war itself)? And, if you say no it won't, how do you know that that isn't just an idea that has been welded into your mind due to generations of the new policies of politeness and gentleman's conduct?