Conquer Club

As we look back at humanity through the years, there are simple constants that can be observed, one of these is war. War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species. So with this in mind, we must ask ourselves, why war? What good becomes of it? Does peace accompany it? America specifically has been an active participator in wars, and whether they are originally justified or not, does the end result legitimize the intentions of the war? I do not aim at completely stopping war, as I accept its inevitability, I only hope that we can reflect upon and possibly learn from our past experiences.
War has brought an end to countless lives, and in the nuclear age, it threatens to bring an end to human beings. It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise? To look at our future, I feel it is most important to look back at our past and ask: is peace created from these wars?

This is my thesis for my english final, I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about the matter.

Oh man, there are so many reasons for war in our times, but it's too late at night for me to discuss it in great length. I'll sum up the main reasons: Humans may have developed technologically but are, in essence still the territorial creatures we've always been since the dawn of mankind, and so we keep fighting because it's in our genes. We also wage wars because certain people earn big money from it, this way or another. And ultimately we wage war for survival, which in our times translates into war for resources. Oh, and let's not forget religion, it has been a popular reason for the last couple millenniums.

So basically war is a part of our existence, and we're pretty screwed because now of all times we have weapons that can wipe our pity existence from the face of this planet. Good night.

Well im sure there are very few people that go out looking for war, especially if they are going againast a much larger force than themselves. I can see the point of war only if it were to have a positive effect on others that would outweigh the positives to war. I actually belive that the war in Iraq, if carried out successfully, can be a positive turning point in the world. But that is not possible with all the politics that surround thw world today. So no, war will not have a positive outcome with all the bullshit of the world today, but the long line of egotistical people will never end and wars will not become a thing of the past.

- resources
- territory
- power
- self defence
- religion
- personal slight
- distrust
- general confusion

There are probably a couple of others I've forgotten.

chewyman wrote:There are probably a couple of others I've forgotten.

- enjoyment
- boredom

-haliburton
-rand coporation
-lockheed (are they still around?)
-blackwater
-the rest of the military-industrial complex
-m-i complex's influence/bribery of the gov't, particularly the repubs

ritz627 wrote: War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species.

I disagree on that point. There IS war in other species. It is mostly fought over territory, but it IS war. Many kinds of animals, especially group society animals (Meercats, Ants, Bees, etc.) can raid the land and homes of other competing groups and even kill the members of the group they are taking over to expand the territory of their own group. They will often go to great length to eliminate their competition and secure a useful source of food and shelter. It IS war.

Which brings in the point on whether war is instinctual or is it a choice made? I belive that we were all born with a sense of competition with others and its the urge to be better than our fellow humans that we wage war.

Gold Knight wrote:Which brings in the point on whether war is instinctual or is it a choice made? I belive that we were all born with a sense of competition with others and its the urge to be better than our fellow humans that we wage war.

Ya, cause if you dont want to be better than the other guys, you wont survive.

wcaclimbing wrote:

ritz627 wrote: War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species.

I disagree on that point. There IS war in other species. It is mostly fought over territory, but it IS war. Many kinds of animals, especially group society animals (Meercats, Ants, Bees, etc.) can raid the land and homes of other competing groups and even kill the members of the group they are taking over to expand the territory of their own group. They will often go to great length to eliminate their competition and secure a useful source of food and shelter. It IS war.

There is actully cases that monkeys would make tribes and attack others with sticks and weapons. I see a slight resemblense between how they act and the way we acted a the begining of time.

dustn64 wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:

ritz627 wrote: War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species.

I disagree on that point. There IS war in other species. It is mostly fought over territory, but it IS war. Many kinds of animals, especially group society animals (Meercats, Ants, Bees, etc.) can raid the land and homes of other competing groups and even kill the members of the group they are taking over to expand the territory of their own group. They will often go to great length to eliminate their competition and secure a useful source of food and shelter. It IS war.

There is actully cases that monkeys would make tribes and attack others with sticks and weapons. I see a slight resemblense between how they act and the way we acted a the begining of time.

Ya. Most kinds of animals that arent solitary get into fights with other groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

My contribution to the discussion.

... chimpanzees are very warlike. They raid rival "tribes", kill off their males, and take their females.

... something almost human about that.

...

ritz627 wrote:It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise?

In a word, no. In many words; not anytime soon. If the Bible is right, there will be one last battle, then peace forever. If not, then mankind will fight and fight until the strain of our presence here on the earth forces segments of humanity to take flight and flee to the stars. And even then, I'm postulating a hopeful senario. But, then, given that the logical worst-case senario is the extinction of man, wouldn't hope for the best? War, saddly, is very much a part of man. As are the causes of war.

Peace


through


superior


firepower

Jenos Ridan wrote:

ritz627 wrote:It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise?

In a word, no. In many words; not anytime soon. If the Bible is right, there will be one last battle, then peace forever. If not, then mankind will fight and fight until the strain of our presence here on the earth forces segments of humanity to take flight and flee to the stars. And even then, I'm postulating a hopeful senario. But, then, given that the logical worst-case senario is the extinction of man, wouldn't hope for the best? War, saddly, is very much a part of man. As are the causes of war.

Atheists believe that as well... Its just that your peace forever is our nuclear holocaust...

Let's not turn this into another atheists vs. theists thread.

As for the topic of the thread, my brother (dnucci) and I have discussed this subject a bit. I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier posts stating that man is in no way the only species that wages war. In fact, I would argue that war is a necessary part of the natural order. The natural order for organisms is a struggle to survive, and survival of one cannot occur but at the expense of another's survival. So, I would say that war is a necessary part of the natural cycle for most, probably all, species.

If we accept that war is inevitable, then the question my brother and I came to in our discussions is whether man, due to his ability to reason, bears a different responsibility with regard to war than other species. Ants, meerkats, bees, mold, stands of trees, etc. engage in constant battles for dominance against other species that would seek to steal their resources, but they do so without remorse or apology. Man is different because we have this thing we call conscience. So, the question we've been pondering is this: to what degree does our ability as humans to evaluate rightness or wrongness of action change the way we should or should not go about war?

After all, for every species, war is ultimately about resources and the battle for dominance. So, why do we as humans see no moral wrongness in one colony of ants obliterating another, but we blanch at the idea of genocide? This is a very difficult question, I think. Another apropos question in the context of the first post is: What is peace? Really, how would you, ritz, (or anyone else) define 'peace'?

Colossus wrote:If we accept that war is inevitable, then the question my brother and I came to in our discussions is whether man, due to his ability to reason, bears a different responsibility with regard to war than other species. ...

... The problem with this is, imho, reason is a feature of the individual man or woman. You begin considering whole populations, and reason vanishes.

...

to quote MIB, 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.'

Good point, nobunga, and I agree that this point has important bearing on the issue.

Colossus wrote:to quote MIB, 'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.'

Good point, nobunga, and I agree that this point has important bearing on the issue.

I wanted to add that quote. It's so true. I would like to add, however, that war is sort of the classic argument against the innate goodness of man, for whatever that's worth.

ritz627 wrote:As we look back at humanity through the years, there are simple constants that can be observed, one of these is war. War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species. So with this in mind, we must ask ourselves, why war? What good becomes of it? Does peace accompany it? America specifically has been an active participator in wars, and whether they are originally justified or not, does the end result legitimize the intentions of the war? I do not aim at completely stopping war, as I accept its inevitability, I only hope that we can reflect upon and possibly learn from our past experiences.
War has brought an end to countless lives, and in the nuclear age, it threatens to bring an end to human beings. It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise? To look at our future, I feel it is most important to look back at our past and ask: is peace created from these wars?

This is my thesis for my english final, I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about the matter.

Lets discuss World War II. Now one of the most adamant arch-appeasers of our time was Neville Chamberlain. He was so so anti-war that he manipulated public opinion through media censorship, ignored the chances of forming alliances e.g with America in February 1938 because he feared it would start a war and reduced public spending on military when chancellor in 1935. Who did he have to do with, Adolf Hitler. Now Hitler took advantage of Chamberlain's peaceful side and invaded more and more territory. This is most evident in October 1938 where at a peace treaty, a large chunk of Czechoslovakia's land was signed away to Hitler without consulting Czechoslovakia in a pitiful attempt by Chamberlain to stop war. Czechoslovakia was later invaded by Hitler in March 1939, whilst no other countries did anything. Their national sovereignty and the concept of self-determination was signed away. Eventually Britain felt compelled to declare war against Hitler and what happened after the war? We found Hitler had been mass-exterminating Jews. The moral of this story is that in some cases War is justified to prevent a greater evil. Chamberlain believed war to be the greatest evil out there but there are greater evils and if a policy of detterence had began earlier then war could perhaps have been prevented. Whilst many wars such as the Iraq war lack serious legitimacy and are just organised by gun-ho evil authoritarians like Bush, to put all wars under one blanket is a serious misjudgement as there are various situations.

nagerous wrote:

ritz627 wrote:As we look back at humanity through the years, there are simple constants that can be observed, one of these is war. War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species. So with this in mind, we must ask ourselves, why war? What good becomes of it? Does peace accompany it? America specifically has been an active participator in wars, and whether they are originally justified or not, does the end result legitimize the intentions of the war? I do not aim at completely stopping war, as I accept its inevitability, I only hope that we can reflect upon and possibly learn from our past experiences.
War has brought an end to countless lives, and in the nuclear age, it threatens to bring an end to human beings. It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise? To look at our future, I feel it is most important to look back at our past and ask: is peace created from these wars?

This is my thesis for my english final, I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about the matter.

Lets discuss World War II. Now one of the most adamant arch-appeasers of our time was Neville Chamberlain. He was so so anti-war that he manipulated public opinion through media censorship, ignored the chances of forming alliances e.g with America in February 1938 because he feared it would start a war and reduced public spending on military when chancellor in 1935. Who did he have to do with, Adolf Hitler. Now Hitler took advantage of Chamberlain's peaceful side and invaded more and more territory. This is most evident in October 1938 where at a peace treaty, a large chunk of Czechoslovakia's land was signed away to Hitler without consulting Czechoslovakia in a pitiful attempt by Chamberlain to stop war. Czechoslovakia was later invaded by Hitler in March 1939, whilst no other countries did anything. Their national sovereignty and the concept of self-determination was signed away. Eventually Britain felt compelled to declare war against Hitler and what happened after the war? We found Hitler had been mass-exterminating Jews. The moral of this story is that in some cases War is justified to prevent a greater evil. Chamberlain believed war to be the greatest evil out there but there are greater evils and if a policy of detterence had began earlier then war could perhaps have been prevented. Whilst many wars such as the Iraq war lack serious legitimacy and are just organised by gun-ho evil authoritarians like Bush, to put all wars under one blanket is a serious misjudgement as there are various situations.

Yes, though we must keep in mind even WWII wasn't inevitable. Nazi Germany came into power as a result of WWI and the punishing standards of the peace treaty. And, WWI was possibly the most avoidable war in human history. If we had never started WWI, and never included such punishing aspects to the peace treaty, (such a Germany and Austria-Hungary had to completely pay of the war damage puting them in a massive depression, and Austria-Hungary was ordered to split), Nazi Germany most likely would not exist. It only existed because the conditions were completely right, and Germany wanted revenge.

ritz627 wrote:

nagerous wrote:

ritz627 wrote:As we look back at humanity through the years, there are simple constants that can be observed, one of these is war. War has been accepted as a common practice of the human race, never appearing in any other earthbound species. So with this in mind, we must ask ourselves, why war? What good becomes of it? Does peace accompany it? America specifically has been an active participator in wars, and whether they are originally justified or not, does the end result legitimize the intentions of the war? I do not aim at completely stopping war, as I accept its inevitability, I only hope that we can reflect upon and possibly learn from our past experiences.
War has brought an end to countless lives, and in the nuclear age, it threatens to bring an end to human beings. It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise? To look at our future, I feel it is most important to look back at our past and ask: is peace created from these wars?

This is my thesis for my english final, I thought it would be interesting to hear what you guys have to say about the matter.

Lets discuss World War II. Now one of the most adamant arch-appeasers of our time was Neville Chamberlain. He was so so anti-war that he manipulated public opinion through media censorship, ignored the chances of forming alliances e.g with America in February 1938 because he feared it would start a war and reduced public spending on military when chancellor in 1935. Who did he have to do with, Adolf Hitler. Now Hitler took advantage of Chamberlain's peaceful side and invaded more and more territory. This is most evident in October 1938 where at a peace treaty, a large chunk of Czechoslovakia's land was signed away to Hitler without consulting Czechoslovakia in a pitiful attempt by Chamberlain to stop war. Czechoslovakia was later invaded by Hitler in March 1939, whilst no other countries did anything. Their national sovereignty and the concept of self-determination was signed away. Eventually Britain felt compelled to declare war against Hitler and what happened after the war? We found Hitler had been mass-exterminating Jews. The moral of this story is that in some cases War is justified to prevent a greater evil. Chamberlain believed war to be the greatest evil out there but there are greater evils and if a policy of detterence had began earlier then war could perhaps have been prevented. Whilst many wars such as the Iraq war lack serious legitimacy and are just organised by gun-ho evil authoritarians like Bush, to put all wars under one blanket is a serious misjudgement as there are various situations.

Yes, though we must keep in mind even WWII wasn't inevitable. Nazi Germany came into power as a result of WWI and the punishing standards of the peace treaty. And, WWI was possibly the most avoidable war in human history. If we had never started WWI, and never included such punishing aspects to the peace treaty, (such a Germany and Austria-Hungary had to completely pay of the war damage puting them in a massive depression, and Austria-Hungary was ordered to split), Nazi Germany most likely would not exist. It only existed because the conditions were completely right, and Germany wanted revenge.

I feel that WWII was inevitable, that in no ways could we have completely stopped it, though maybe postponed. Even without the treaty condemning Germany and the Axis powers for the war, the Nazi party wouldve still existed in Germany and the people of the country would've still sought revenge.

It is much like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: we can continue to destroy the top figures of the organization, but behind them will always be another just as radical to take control. With Osama not directly ordering the terrorists and many of his top men killed each day, the attacks still never stop and more and more get added to the Most Wanted list.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

ritz627 wrote:It was John F. Kennedy who once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind”, but is this even possible? Are we destined to fight until our untimely demise?

In a word, no. In many words; not anytime soon. If the Bible is right, there will be one last battle, then peace forever. If not, then mankind will fight and fight until the strain of our presence here on the earth forces segments of humanity to take flight and flee to the stars. And even then, I'm postulating a hopeful senario. But, then, given that the logical worst-case senario is the extinction of man, wouldn't hope for the best? War, saddly, is very much a part of man. As are the causes of war.

Actually, even if a decent percentage of humanity makes it to the stars, the survival of the species isnt guarenteed.
If two Neutron stars collide or even a plain old supernova occur, then any humans within a few dozen light-years are screwed.
That and these hypothetical segments will be just as fractious and likely to destroy themselves as the original population.

And even if humanity manages to survive those hurdles, we're all screwed from the heat death.

Have a nice day

chewyman wrote:- resources
- territory
- power
- self defence
- religion
- personal slight
- distrust
- general confusion

There are probably a couple of others I've forgotten.

here's one: the bastards in charge aren't actually fighting + neither are there kids