War: Is it worth it?

[Netjet!]

Hey guys, I thought about posting a CT thread about this, but never got around to it.


Well, as the title states, my question is about the one and only, war. Dictionary.com defines war as "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.". What I ask you people tonight is, is it worth it?

In my point of view, there is NO point to war. Even if you defeat your enemy, even if they are weakened, in the end it all does nothing. After the war, the enemies will probably have a bigger grudge against you from the start. I also think that once war starts, it doesn't truly end until both sides are dead, or they realize their faults and try to make a negotiation.

For example, most wars are ended because both sides do not want to lose any more people, or force themselves into poverty. Quoted from Wikipedia: The political and economic circumstances in the peace that follows war usually depends on the "facts on the ground". Where evenly matched adversaries decide that the conflict has resulted in a stalemate, they may cease hostilities to avoid further loss of life and property. They may decide to restore the antebellum territorial boundaries, redraw boundaries at the line of military control, or negotiate to keep or exchange captured territory. Negotiations between parties involved at the end of a war often result in a treaty, such as the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which ended the First World War. I think that you should just not even begin war, for at the end, you just end off worse than when you started battling.


So I ask you people, what is your take on this? Do you believe war is a worthwhile thing, that resolves issues? Or do you think it is meaningless, and that it just causes more trouble? Please respond.

-Net

[rzr]

War is worth the peace it achieves? Well, no. No amount of violence will ever stop conflict. No amount of death will ever cease the voices of war-hawks. But will that change war from occuring? No. There is only one thing I can say to justify the existance and repetition of war:

si vis pacem, para beilum

When you want peace, prepare for war.

[purebloodtexan]

That depends. I think war can be necessary for what some might consider to be the right reasons. Wars and skirmishes have also shaped important parts of history that wouldn't exist otherwise.

For example, I learned recently in AP World History that many nations in the late 1700's and 1800's saw revolutions such as the American Revolution and French Revolution and saw how effective they were. As a result, many citizens that felt oppressed decide to rebel as well. Although many of the rebellions were unsuccessful, the nations' leaders began avoiding revolutions by being open to change in the citizens' favor.

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty certain that the rebels atleast tried to reason with the leaders and get them to compromise. However, I don't think that you should automatically pull an uprising out of your pocket at the slightest provocation. For example, the American colonies were being treated unfairly for nearly two decades before the revolution.

[Sullyman2007]

It's in human nature to be violent. That's just how we are, and it's how we have been.
I believe war is...a necessity. We need to fight because it's how were programed. If there was no fighting, this would be a pretty boring place. That is, for a species of our genetic makeup.
To answer your question, yes, I do believe war is "worthwhile". It settles mankinds disputes. Naturally, fighting will cause more trouble. I guess thats the circle right there.

In the example you posted, you quoted the Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI. If I remember correctly, the Treaty of Versailles required Germany to take full responsibility of the war, as well as half the military force and split up their country.
But what did the Treaty of Versailles actually do? Most historians agree that the Treaty of Versailles is what caused WWII. Further support for my earlier explanation.

[devonin]

There's actually a fairly large subsection of historians (I'm one of them) who feel that there was actually no world war I and II, just one longer war that had a negotiated and then violated ceasefire. There were no new "causes" for the second world war because the war never actually ended.

To the OP, conflict is inevitable as long as humans have needs and wants, and a desire to fulfill them. I don't believe that -war- is strictly necessary, but since it has long been such an easy method for the elect to get what they want (since face it, presidents and generals don't go into trenches) that there hasn't been nearly as dedicated a committment to diplomacy and peaceful resolution.

[rzr]

At long last I agree with devonin. There was an armistice (hehe, the name of my band) between the periods of 'WWI' and 'WWII' but those are just names of larger conflicts.

About the treaty of Versailles: that was the stupidest document ever created in the history of modern countries. First off, the treaty required Germany to have a MAXIMUM of 100000 man army. As a country though, not individuals. By the time 'WWII' rolled around Adold Hitler had a 300000 man private army.
The treaty did nothing except anger the Germans further.

[Shenlon]

Such a silly question. War is totally worth it. If you're the winner. Why the vast majority of wars in our history have been fought? For religion, resources, and rights. (Also: I love alliteration.) Back when religion was almost globally a sacred thing, it sure as hell felt like dying for it was a noble cause, especially if it meant strengthening your own people. But the fundamental bottom line? Power. The wars that are going on in Africa for example are all for power. Distribution of wealth, distribution of weapons, etc. Anyways, I hope that answers the question sufficiently.

[JonXia]

For us as nations, the debate for war is always a yes/no thing. I'll take it in a different direction.

Usually when a species gets overpopulated in an enviroment, many things happen. Take deer for instance. There are too many either starvation, sickness or predators chip away at said deer until a normal level is achieved and eventually the herd is thinned out for the habitat to support them.

Humans in the other hand have no superior predators, we are the top and there is a LOT of us. Nobody is eating us, aliens aren't abducting us fast enough, the T-Virus hasn't been made yet, natural disasters aren't killing enough of us, we are feeding the starving, we are helping the sick and nothing is killing us to the point where the earth can support our species in an effecive way that synchronizes with our technological level to increase our longevity.

What is left to wipe us out?

War of course. We are territorial, we are selfish, we care only for ourselves and a few people and depending on what philosopher you believe, our hearts are evil (though the good/evil thing is up to debate too).

We need war to keep us in check. A couple of bombs in China, a faster disease then AIDs in Africa and an underground mob rising in Japan would help out a whole bunch, Somebody has to create weapons, somebody has to make food. Our economies go up, people die, more money for less people. We are the least violent generation, we just have better ways of killing eachother.

[funmonkey54]

That is definitely not true. We have war to achieve peace. Disease is the only circumstance that could argue that point. It is not to keep us in check but to let us live our lives in a safe place.

[JonXia]

It is true if you have the population in check

[rzr]

Not entirely correct. The need for war is not most likely driven by our animalistic instinct. The need for violence, death, and negativity may be. But war is a more consciously driven act.

The need for war [in most cases] is caused by a leader's need for territory, power, and/or enjoyment. The soldiers as individuals are not necessarily the people who sought out the war, it's the people sending them there.

For example, take Russia (no offense to anyone). A very territorial and constantly expanding nation. Their leader? Vladamir Putin (spelling?). He wants to gain more territory and henceforth may use force (aka war) to gain said territory.

The need for war is accepted in society, not moraly though. For safety and feelings of nationalism. Regardless of any ethnicity behind the motives, war will still happen. Everyone has their moment's when they get mad and make a mistake. The same thing happens to our leader's only they have more power therefore more damage gets done (aka war again).


On another note, I'd like to suggest jonXia sticks around in here for a little while, his points are very thought out and I enjoy reading them.

[Shenlon]

Sorry sorry, Rzr I have to strongly disagree with a small thing. You may have carelessly added it.. but what? Wars may be driven by a leader's need for enjoyment? What the hell? Point out one example of that, please. War is a costly, risky endeavor. And it seems you contradict yourself by also saying that war is not most likely driven by our more animalistic side but enjoyment as itself seems a pretty base reason for war. I don't know, I haven't the time right now to properly construct a more insightful piece. Also, peace out guys.

[rzr]

My pleasure. Many conflicts were simply provoked to appease the boredom of a leader. The strongest example of the top of my head was a Transylvanian emperor, who was the inspiration for Dracula. He relished in the torture of others, including his enemies. His lust for pain was rooted at witnessing the torture and murder of his father by the Roman Saxons. I can get further into this, but the emperor's name has slipped my mind.

[Zythus]

My, owning this place already?

War, like JonaXia said, is the influx of human egotism to the boiling point. Stated on the basic level, nationality, patriotism, and domination, they all fit seamlessly into such category. All motivated by the influential pride, theres merely nothing beautiful about war, only humans' little competition of avarice and greed. As long as humans exist, war is forevermore omnipresent.

Originally Posted by rzr

For example, take Russia (no offense to anyone). A very territorial and constantly expanding nation. Their leader? Vladamir Putin (spelling?). He wants to gain more territory and henceforth may use force (aka war) to gain said territory.

AND

Originally Posted by rzr

Everyone has their moment's when they get mad and make a mistake. The same thing happens to our leader's only they have more power therefore more damage gets done (aka war again).

Contradiction much? You are basically justifying that a national leader's decision for war is a mistake where they will kill targets to expand their country and then finally realizes it was a mistake . Nor does the statements make any sense. This also contradicts the "leader's need for territory" statement. War isn't impulsive, I believe that national leaders possess even that level of elementary sense.

[devonin]

Pretty sure Russia isn't really keen on starting a war and expanding their holdings. Maybe I've somehow missed something from the news lately, but Russia's been fairly conciliatory. About the only thing they've done lately of diplomatic import has been to refuse to recognise Kosovar independance.

And as for Vlad the Impaler, he was a Romanian nobleman, at his peak roughly equivalent to a prince. He wasn't an emperor, his life occured -well- after the Roman Empire had collapsed, and the principle enemy of his people was the Ottoman Turks, not Saxons. His father was assassinated by his own people, not outsiders. He was also only born in Translyvania, he ruled and lived in Wallachia, which is a ways to the south of Translyvania.

His "lust for power" generally extended to resisting the inroads of the Ottomans to claim Wallachia as part of the Ottoman Empire, and while his big impaling fit was historically accurate, the people who were impaled were captured invading turkish soldiers.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by devonin

There's actually a fairly large subsection of historians (I'm one of them) who feel that there was actually no world war I and II, just one longer war that had a negotiated and then violated ceasefire. There were no new "causes" for the second world war because the war never actually ended.

To the OP, conflict is inevitable as long as humans have needs and wants, and a desire to fulfill them. I don't believe that -war- is strictly necessary, but since it has long been such an easy method for the elect to get what they want (since face it, presidents and generals don't go into trenches) that there hasn't been nearly as dedicated a committment to diplomacy and peaceful resolution.

One time, I was in my AP NSL class and this was what happened last year: Many people were answering this one question that read: What position do you think is the most important position that the president has? Almost everyone stated commander in chief, but I later brought up the point that if a president can actually be a good chief negotiator, he doesn't even need to be a good commander in chief (though it's always good just in case) making the chief negotiator position more important.

As far as war goes, I don't like wars that go nowhere or just further seperate the world. I support anything that unifies the world to becoming one peaceful nation without these small nations and divisions. However, I'm not saying that the world should be like super Nazi Germany or something, but a giant, united nation with peace for everyone. Whether peace or war can accomplish this I don't know, but I would hope that it could somehow peacefully happen even though I seriously doubt it.

[purebloodtexan]

Cultural isolation (although not whole) might be the only way to keep the most peace throughout the world.

If I'm not mistaken, one reason for the skirmishes in Iraq (I've been trying to avoid using the term "war" for what's going on over there) is us trying to encourage democracy on the Islamic peoples and bring the Sunnis and Shia together. This clearly isn't working, and Iraq was probably more stable and friendly when Saddam was in power due to the fact that he kept the two Muslim factions away from each other.

[devonin]

And once again, the poor Kurds just get completely ignored. The largest ethnic group on EARTH that doesn't have its own country, and nobody even seems to notice they exist.

[purebloodtexan]

I haven't heard much of the Kurdish people at all, as crazy as it seems. Could you give me a brief overview of their involvement in the conflicts in the Middle East?

[rzr]

What about the Israel/Palestine conflict? Perfect example of war going nowhere.