This question is hard to answer. When thinking hundreds back people went into war because of greed or hatred, war has been apart of settling disputes and greed for hundreds of years and we have adapted to that. We fight for survival, which I guess, back a couple of hundred years ago, is how countries would settle thing and probably war was how it was done. Possibly language barriers were the reason for war, with no other ways of communication, people fought for what they fought right or better. Since then, I guess we have adapted this, it has become apart of us, i.e. the second world war could have possibly been stopped if the big leaders had communicated with Hitler and followed the treaty of Versailles. Instead when they knew that they had to stop Germany, instead of communication they went what was adapted to and what had seemingly work in the past. What people before them did to settle and expand. To stop other countries doing what's wrong. So in that sense, I do not think it's necessary because communication can easily stop a war before it begins, however we have adapted to war. We have created weapons of destruction which can destroy major cities and countries. War can begin anytime and anywhere when there is a dispute.

Going to what Zed said. Why would country A want to invade country B anyway?

The point I'm trying to raise on all of this isn't the reasoning behind wars. But rather the reasoning of wars versus the humanity in human beings. As I stated in the first post, besides the roaring war-threatening tensions between Iran and the US, Iranian personnel and US sailors still co-operated in a way to achieve greater success for both parties.

I'm sure within every conflict a sort of story like this happens. So why don't we ever use them as examples for reasons that the citizens of Country A and B might not want to fight each other, but instead are dragged in to believe fighting is the only way to settle things? As we grow from our young ages we're always told that by hurting someone who has hurt you, you're no better than them. Instead of violently attacking one who has bothered you and risking either party to be permanently damaged, you should find a smart and non-violent way to hush them and make them realize they gain nothing from destruction and hate.

When we view a country as evil and corrupt, we forget that we're basing the country off the beliefs of the ruler. We entered the Middle East in order to protect Kuwait from Iraq. During that time we believed Iraq was terribly evil. Ironically we later on defended the people of Iraq from their ruler (the one who was at fault for the original disorder of peace). We can blame all of Germany for both World Wars, but the truth is it was the leaders who had brainwashed the people as they grew older to believe that in the end war is correct. A great example of this is North Korea. Did anyone see the video of the North Koreans weeping intensely at the death of Kim Jong Il? How could they weep over someone who has threatened their chances of living with scarcity of food and security? Because those people were raised to believe that he himself is a God.

But do you really think that these people are completely a lost cause? I remember seeing a documentary discussing the human capability of possessing sympathy and empathy. Truth is as young children who still do not know anything, we're wired to be distressed when we see others in distress, and be happy when we see others happy. I highly doubt that citizens of North Korea despite how they've been raised would kill a citizen of different nationality in complete cold blood.

war is not a neccesity, if people only learned to get along with each other the world would be better off (and if we had no politicians)

but it is our human nature that makes us want to better other people.. so we fight with them :/

Quote from ultrachimp

the second world war could have possibly been stopped if the big leaders had communicated with Hitler and followed the treaty of Versailles. Instead when they knew that they had to stop Germany, instead of communication they went what was adapted to and what had seemingly work in the past.

After Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Neville Chamberlain spoke to Hitler and got him to sign a treaty assuring everyone he wouldn't attack anyone else. Here he is coming back from that. Then Hitler invaded Poland and France anyway. Sure, it doesn't seem like he wanted to go to war with Britain, but would you keep pursuing a policy of appeasement in that situation?

Going to what Zed said. Why would country A want to invade country B anyway?

Land, resources, slaves, power, religion, etc. Some of these can be gotten diplomatically to some extent, but what if A wants more resources than B is willing to give up? The only way to achieve their goal is warfare.

But most of the people up there can't think of another one.

Don't be needlessly inflammatory. Of *course* it's our fault that they attacked us, and it is true that if we were not contrary to their personal beliefs and did not get in the way of what they were doing, they would not have done some of the things they did. But that is not the same thing as us being bad people.

Quote from CaptinLongstock

Correct, the Kuwait was the initial reason for the War. However, the US didn't "finish" the job and remove SH from power.

From what I gather your argument is...It's all...our fault? "The Taliban attacks the US because we are what? Stopping crimes against humanity? Genocide? Helping countries under dictatorship?

Basically your saying, don't upset these people, it's your fault, if you had left them alone, none of this would of happened. How contemptible. It's very easy for you to say, sitting behind your computer eating Mcdonalds, your village isn't being tested for chemical warfare. You not held at gunpoint while your family is being executed and forced to applaud.

Not only this, but the Iraq and Taliban I conducer to be generally separate, although SH did harbour the masterminds of 9/11. The Taliban originate from Pakistan.

Seems you know little about the subject and take the mainstream view of "It's not our Problem"

You obviously missed what I was trying to get at. What I was pointing out that when we began fighting SH and his regime of men we began defending the people we were originally killing in order to defend Kuwait. Do you see what's wrong with the picture here? When we were defending Kuwait we captured thousands of Iraqi troops. The twist is that over half of them initially surrendered peacefully without resistance. Because everyone jumps to warfare so quickly, we disband the morality of human beings and simply use gunfire and violence as solutions. Yes the coalition forces had to step in in order to stop civilian deaths in Kuwait. But do you honestly believe that if we played it smarter and attempted to use strategic non-violent methods that made these soldiers realize what they were doing that we'd just end up flat?

Also I'm not eating McDonalds. I'm eating Honey Nut Chex. And I'm hoping you realize that helping those in dire need from others that are resorting to violence is also my standpoint. I only made the Taliban statement because it is true regardless. Yes we've probably saved thousands of lives in the Middle East from the presence of our forces. But that was also at the cost of thousands of victims in bombing attacks in the US. Those wouldn't have happened if we never involved ourselves.

I believe war is necessary. I mean, it sucks, but as long as we've got more than two cultures in the world, there's going to be conflict. It's we way we address this conflict, however, that could be reassessed.

To be honest, however, I find little value in human life, and modern warfare is just a really large fireworks show, except that we're pointing the fireworks at other people. Eventually, I believe that humans will either leave the Earth and explore space, or simply destroy themselves. So it's a race to see whether we can establish colonies in space before we fire nukes off.

Quote from Sacred

When we were defending Kuwait we captured thousands of Iraqi troops. The twist is that over half of them initially surrendered peacefully without resistance. Because everyone jumps to warfare so quickly, we disband the morality of human beings and simply use gunfire and violence as solutions. Yes the coalition forces had to step in in order to stop civilian deaths in Kuwait. But do you honestly believe that if we played it smarter and attempted to use strategic non-violent methods that made these soldiers realize what they were doing that we'd just end up flat?

I think dropping propaganda leaflets is part of the standard battleplan, and there's certainly a lot of talk about the "hearts and minds" aspect of the occupation (although I dislike any wording I can't say that without an American accent) which involves trying to make sure the locals see us as friendly. I don't think it's enough on its own though.

Quote from Captain Cook

I believe war is necessary. I mean, it sucks, but as long as we've got more than two cultures in the world, there's going to be conflict. It's we way we address this conflict, however, that could be reassessed.

That's not what necessary means.

War is inevitable. If you put two people in an enclosed room together they'll eventually come up with a reason to kill each other. This can also be said for mankind in general. Mankind can never have enough. As long as someone else has something someone else wants then there will be war. Also if no one ever had wars imagine the kind of crisis we'd be in. The overpopulation would be at ridiculous levels if wars had never been fought. The human race repopulates much too quickly. Therefore war is a necessity.

Quote from MicVeir4

The human race repopulates much too quickly. Therefore war is a necessity.

Haha what a laughable statement, things could and SHOULD have been done to curve population. However what you are saying is, well.... there are too many people, therefor war is a necessity because it will wipe out, hopefully, a few million people. Using that logic the holocaust must have been a necessity, both world wars were a necessity because there was too much F******.... IDIOT

Also to Sacred's comment, who appears to think we can simply "talk" our way out war on terror, which is impossible in this situation. The Taliban literally think they have GOD on their side. God wants them to blow ourselves up in an orphanage, then I'm guaranteed a juicy spot in heaven with premium virgins...come on...There is NO negotiation with these people. Their goal is death.

You honestly expect the rest of the world to say, Come on guys, lets talk about this, theres no need for blood shed... I take it you really know nothing of how the Taliban works...

Quote from MicVeir4

The human race repopulates much too quickly. Therefore war is a necessity.

The world should use condoms then.

Quote from MicVeir4

War is inevitable. If you put two people in an enclosed room together they'll eventually come up with a reason to kill each other

[citation needed]

Quote from MicVeir4

Also if no one ever had wars imagine the kind of crisis we'd be in. The overpopulation would be at ridiculous levels if wars had never been fought.

You mean there's no way to lower population levels other than killing massive amounts of people manually?