Why do humans insist on war?

We know from historical examples that non-violent conflict is one of the best methods for achieving real change.Franklinstein

State these examples. Define "real change."

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]We know from historical examples that non-violent conflict is one of the best methods for achieving real change.Palantas

State these examples. Define "real change."

The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement, the liberation of India from the British Empire. In all of these cases very basic civil rights were denied to a group of people, and these movements brought forth the change that gave them these basic civil rights.Franklinstein

Based on these statements, "real change" is where people get basic civil rights. Why does this determine "real change," as opposed to some other metric?

Not a big fan of Anti flag but this seems to be very true.

Anti-Flag anatomy of your enemy.

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them
with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

[Chorus:]
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

ManKelly

Sometimes words just won't work and violence is necessary to stop tyrants or bad people from harming innocents.

foxhound_fox

Maybe they do it for the lulz? I know I would.

violence can always be avoided. Words don't always work but violence never works. if you think outside of the box you can find you can always avoid violence.

mayceV

Somebody breaks into your house, you don't call the cops, right?

[QUOTE="mayceV"]

violence can always be avoided. Words don't always work but violence never works. if you think outside of the box you can find you can always avoid violence.

Palantas

Somebody breaks into your house, you don't call the cops, right?

Or better yet, one of my favorite rebuttals to "Violence doesn't solve anything".

But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."

"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"

They had tangled before -- since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"

"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that `violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"]

violence can always be avoided. Words don't always work but violence never works. if you think outside of the box you can find you can always avoid violence.

DucksBrains

Somebody breaks into your house, you don't call the cops, right?

Or better yet, one of my favorite rebuttals to "Violence doesn't solve anything".

But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."

"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"

They had tangled before -- since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"

"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that `violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

Although that quote is sort of true it has a really big flaw. Violence hasn't solved more issues in history than any other factor otherwise we wouldn't be living in a society where thousands of issues are solved every minute of everyday without violence. And most people complain about the phrase "violence never settles anything" with an opposing but equally flawed argument that "violence solves a lot or everything" and that's why it was so easy for Bush to justify a bogus war with Afghanistan and Irak due to many people following that flawed reasoning.

Most, if not all wars in history can be explained by

1. perceived injustice

2. protecting or stealing resources

3. superiority complex

Although that quote is sort of true it has a really big flaw. Violence hasn't solved more issues in history than any other factor otherwise we wouldn't be living in a society where thousands of issues are solved every minute of everyday without violence.

kuraimen

Yes yes, along with the thousands of assaults, battery, homicides, kidnappings, rapes, and robberies, but hey we're just arguing semantics here.

And most people complain about the phrase "violence never settles anything" with an opposing but equally flawed argument that "violence solves a lot or everything" and that's why it was so easy for Bush to justify a bogus war with Afghanistan and Irak due to many people following that flawed reasoning.

kuraimen

Prove to me that violence doesn't settle anything. Neville Chamberlain failed miserably at it, perhaps you could do better?

[QUOTE="mayceV"]

violence can always be avoided. Words don't always work but violence never works. if you think outside of the box you can find you can always avoid violence.

Somebody breaks into your house, you don't call the cops, right?

Franklinstein there's a simple answerfor everything butyou don't seethembecause youexpect more people to practice what they preach. Over time you'll see the lies and the intentions they were fabricated for. You'll see MOST rules are bull ****. Most of those rules are written to obstruct, harass or extort someone else. It's all part of their game. They are right and you're wrong, because they sayso, since their rules say so. But if they contradict their own rules they just exempt their selves from those rules.

Why do they do what they do ? Because killing others to eliminate competition, population or steal their resources is the way of the real world. Everything they have done to brainwash you has been done to confuse you and make you believe you don't understand their reasons. The facade of world peace or alliance is just to keep people believing things have changed.

Lets take it the courts for example. How many innocent people are put in prison simply because the system doesn't want to admit they are incapable of proving someone guilty? How manyprosicutors knowingly putinnocent men in jail because losing a case is bad for their record therefore bad their career. So ultimately everything is about whatever benefits the person or associates. They're all mercenaries. It's not about morals or doing the right thing. It's about getting what they want and screw whoever gets in their way.

Do you like your carinternet access, TV service, Ipod, Cell phone and game system? Yeah. Do you want to keep these things? Yes. Mostcitizens know economy isn't backed by farts so they don't care who must die in order tocontinue livingtheir luxuriousway of life. They PRETEND they do because it makes them look good, but looking good isn't being good. People who are smart enough to know it's all bull **** accept the lies because they don't want to hear the truth. They knowwhy they haveeverything they haveso they also know what it's going to take to keep it. BUT they don't want to hear it, because it's disgraceful. People like to pretend strict rules and convulutedpolices make them right. They either don't want people to realize they are a bad guyOR pretending they aren't a bad guy gets them through the days.

It's all smoke and mirros anyway, a diversion. Dictation in the form of supposed freedoms and rights. Freedoms and rights you're alloweduntil the day you conflict with an agenda. That's theday you find outyou don't really have any rights. You were free to believe. You may also find out just how expendable you really are.

Aside from resources there is also one other thing people constantly conspire to deny others. Freedom. They will kill to take that and people will fight to take it back.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement, the liberation of India from the British Empire. In all of these cases very basic civil rights were denied to a group of people, and these movements brought forth the change that gave them these basic civil rights.Palantas

Based on these statements, "real change" is where people get basic civil rights. Why does this determine "real change," as opposed to some other metric?

Because some people are tricked by the propaganda that says war and violence will bring peace. The "real change" I'm reffering to here is the change from a world of violence to a world of peace.

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement, the liberation of India from the British Empire. In all of these cases very basic civil rights were denied to a group of people, and these movements brought forth the change that gave them these basic civil rights.Franklinstein

Based on these statements, "real change" is where people get basic civil rights. Why does this determine "real change," as opposed to some other metric?

Because some people are tricked by the propaganda that says war and violence will bring peace. The "real change" I'm reffering to here is the change from a world of violence to a world of peace.

So, peace brings about real change, because real change is peace. Okay...that doesn't explain anything. I also don't see how this matches up with the examples in your previous post, where you identified attainment of basic civil rights as the metric for "real change."

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"]

violence can always be avoided. Words don't always work but violence never works. if you think outside of the box you can find you can always avoid violence.

mayceV

Somebody breaks into your house, you don't call the cops, right?

self defence =/= war. We're talking war here.

We were talking about war, until you said "violence." Violence encompasses a great many more activites than warfare, and warfare involves an array of processes that are not necessarily violent. (Means "violence =/= warfare").

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement, the liberation of India from the British Empire. In all of these cases very basic civil rights were denied to a group of people, and these movements brought forth the change that gave them these basic civil rights.Franklinstein

Based on these statements, "real change" is where people get basic civil rights. Why does this determine "real change," as opposed to some other metric?

Because some people are tricked by the propaganda that says war and violence will bring peace. The "real change" I'm referring to here is the change from a world of violence to a world of peace.

Don't forget that the formerdraft forced many people to fight foreign wars. My father joined the servicesohe couldchoose hisspecialty and gethis service timeover with.My father thought being in aviation maintenance would keep him out of the direct conflict, but he ended up M60 door gunner as his secondary duty.

My grandfather dodged so some feds dragged himoff and gave him a choice, service or prison.

Career soldiers don't care. They are there for their own reasons. They don't care what the mission is. It's not that they don't know it's supported bypropaganda, they just don't care, they aremercenaries first and foremost. It doesn't matter if the other half doesn't like or agree because they signed their selves into a regime. So their choices areserve or sit in aprison untilthey decidethey want to serve. People don't realize that when they join the military they forfeit most of their civilian rights during that contract, because they don't tellthem that.

Now back to the people who join for their own reasons.. I know many people who have joined just to obtain a military service record. Why? That service record will get them a lot of jobs in the real world. Sure it's favoritism, but they don't care. They know that they have something to fall back on. If things don't work out else where they can atleast get a job as a postal worker or somewhere in city services. So they will kill whoever they have to make sure they have a place in society when they return.

It all goes back to means of survival.

I can't remember who said it but.

"War itself is not the problem, War is the result and solution to other problems"

Wars are always fought for a reason, Remove those reasons and there will be no need for war.

It is human nature. If you think about it, war is just the same as you arguing with your friend or fighting with your bro/sis, except on a global scale.

Humans insist on war because after a while, you find yourself waiting 5 minutes to enter a junction due to the high density of traffic. This means your country is overpopulated and could use a nice bit of war.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Based on these statements, "real change" is where people get basic civil rights. Why does this determine "real change," as opposed to some other metric?

Palantas

Because some people are tricked by the propaganda that says war and violence will bring peace. The "real change" I'm reffering to here is the change from a world of violence to a world of peace.

So, peace brings about real change, because real change is peace. Okay...that doesn't explain anything. I also don't see how this matches up with the examples in your previous post, where you identified attainment of basic civil rights as the metric for "real change."

Stop trying to turn my words into different meanings here. The real change I was obviously talking about was peace, the whole time. The topic is "Why do humans insist on war?". If you cannot see how this matches up with my previous examples, then I am sorry, it seems pretty simple to me. In all of these cases people used peaceful methods of conflict to obtain basic freedoms(the same thing that the US propaganda promises the people of the Middle East, through war). I simply made the comment that "peaceful methods bring real change", because the idea that war can bring peace ignores the fact that war creates the environment for more war. Peace is a better option for the ultimate goal of peace.

I never identified the attainment of basic civil rights as the only metric for real change, you did that. I suppose you're trying to narrow the meaning of my argument in an attempt to weaken it. I simply gave these as examples, they are not, however, THE metric for real change, just A metric.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"]We know from historical examples that non-violent conflict is one of the best methods for achieving real change.Franklinstein

State these examples. Define "real change."

So it won a few people Civil Rights.

It didn't stop 10 million Jews and 15 million Chinese from being ruthlessly slaugthered like cattle by the governments that stormed over their countries.

You can say it was born from violence, what with the "unfair" treatment of Germany after World War I, but it doesn't change the fact that over 30 million innocent people died. The only thing that stopped it was more violence.

Hundreds of millions of people died in World War II. It doesn't matter how it started, why it started, who started it, and how "unfair treatment" was the ultimate catalyst, fact is, it only stopped after a couple hundred million people were either killed or killed each other. In war, nothing matters except that you survive. Most of the soldiers on both sides of any war never fully grasp what they're fighting for, they just fight.

That doesn't stop them from trying to kill each other, but they'll never "make peace". We can lament about how sad and ****ed up it is but it doesn't matter.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

State these examples. Define "real change."

-TheSecondSign-

So it won a few people Civil Rights.

It didn't stop 10 million Jews and 15 million Chinese from being ruthlessly slaugthered like cattle by the governments that stormed over their countries.

You can say it was born from violence, what with the "unfair" treatment of Germany after World War I, but it doesn't change the fact that over 30 million innocent people died. The only thing that stopped it was more violence.

Hundreds of millions of people died in World War II. It doesn't matter how it started, why it started, who started it, and how "unfair treatment" was the ultimate catalyst, fact is, it only stopped after a couple hundred million people were either killed or killed each other. In war, nothing matters except that you survive. Most of the soldiers on both sides of any war never fully grasp what they're fighting for, they just fight.

That doesn't stop them from trying to kill each other, but they'll never "make peace". We can lament about how sad and ****ed up it is but it doesn't matter.

Of course I can say it was born from violence, that's exactly my argument. You can't just ignore the cause and only focus on the solution that was chosen. What if, instead of violence ending this horrible genocide, the people of Germany would have realized how pointless war is?

The statement that most soldiers never fully grasp what they're fighting for completely helps my argument. They don't grasp what they're fighting for, because the reasons that they were told are lies, and the real reasons they are fighting are very secretly covered up by ideas like nationalism, and other forms of propaganda.

I don't see how you can follow this creed when it is proven to result in death. War brings death, violence brings violence. Peace brings peace. The only way peace will ever be a reality in the world is if more people realize this, and it becomes the over arching idea. For example, I'll go back to Germany in WWII, if the German nation would have realized this, they would not have jumped on board with Hitler they would have said, "Hey wait, by committing these acts of violence towards these people, there is a high chance that their decendants and survivors will want some sort of vendetta on my country, completely insuring the cycling nature of violence."

Edit: Also, to say "it helped a few people" is a vast understatement.

Stop trying to turn my words into different meanings here.

Franklinstein

Identify where I did this.

You've said A.) "Peaceful methods bring real change," and B.) "Real change...was peace." So peaceful methods bring peace. Okay. I don't know why you threw this "real change" business in there, other than that you like weasel words. When you don't supply a meaning to your terms, readers are left to come up with their own. If what I come up with doesn't align with what you intended, that's not my fault.

I never identified the attainment of basic civil rights as the only metric for real change, you did that. I suppose you're trying to narrow the meaning of my argument in an attempt to weaken it. I simply gave these as examples, they are not, however, THE metric for real change, just A metric.

Franklinstein

Yeah, I did identify attainment of basic civil rights as a metric for real change, because you didn't define "real change" at all. See bolded part above.

So, "real change" is peace, but real change is also attainment of basic civil rights. How is people getting basic civil rights a way to measure "real change" (peace)? People can attain basic civil rights during times of war and violent revolution. Peace does not necessarily lead to civil rights, and civil rights don't necessarily lead to peace. It looks like you just cherry-picked some feel-good examples and attached them to your ideas, irregardless of their lack of relation. I like how you didn't include "abolition of slavery in the US" on your feel-good list there.

The only way peace will ever be a reality in the world is if more people realize this, and it becomes the over arching idea.

Franklinstein

Yeah, that'd be great. I could then become the ruler of the planet. I'd just grab a stick and clobber anybody who doesn't do what I say. It's not like anyone is going to fight back; everybody believes in peace.

Here, we'll do an experiment in peace. The forum is the world, you are you, and I am me. I'm going to use the weapons available to me in this world, which are words and ideas. Since you believe in peace, you don't get to use those. I get to post all I want, and you just have to sit there and take it. Don't fight back; that's not peaceful.

Let's get started...

What if, instead of violence ending this horrible genocide, the people of Germany would have realized how pointless war is?

Franklinstein

What sort of policy is this? So instead of attacking Germany or Japan (after they attacked us), we should have sat around wishing their populations would realize how pointless war is? Would we ask them to please stop, or would we just wish really hard they'd stop attacking us? What is this, foreign policy through whining? Are you trying to get the GameSpot emblem for naivety?

No other way to put it.

Generally due to conflicts of interest that couldn't be (or simply due to human imperfection, merely weren't) solved via non-violent processes.

Greed and desire for materialistic gains and power.

Yeah, that'd be great. I could then become the ruler of the planet. I'd just grab a stick and clobber anybody who doesn't do what I say. It's not like anyone is going to fight back; everybody believes in peace.

Here, we'll do an experiment in peace. The forum is the world, you are you, and I am me. I'm going to use the weapons available to me in this world, which are words and ideas. Since you believe in peace, you don't get to use those. I get to post all I want, and you just have to sit there and take it. Don't fight back; that's not peaceful.

Let's get started...

Palantas

Well, there are a few things wrong with your argument here.

First, I'd say since you believe in violence, you aren't allowed to use words. Words are what most would consider "peaceful means". I don't really think I need to defend this stance, I'd say it's a pretty common conception that words are not a form of violence(especially not the caliber that we are reffering to in this conversation).

Secondly, if everyone believed in peace, that would include you.

However, you do bring up a somewhat valid point. If the majority of the world believed in peace, then a few evil people could still promote violence. I guess what I am hoping for here is that the people of the world will be educated enough to realize that the ways of peace are correct.

In this hypothetical situation where the whole world believes in peace, where did you learn the ways of violence and evil?

What sort of policy is this? So instead of attacking Germany or Japan (after they attacked us), we should have sat around wishing their populations would realize how pointless war is? Would we ask them to please stop, or would we just wish really hard they'd stop attacking us? What is this, foreign policy through whining? Are you trying to get the GameSpot emblem for naivety?

Palantas

You completely turned what I said around, again. I said that the war could have been avoided if the German nation would have refused to go to war. This would mean that they never attacked us in the first place(even though they didn't anyway, that was Japan). You see, my idea here is not that the American people should have sat down after they were attacked, but that violence was directly responsible for everything that caused the war. I'm talking causes here, not solutions. Although the solutions are somewhat important, because the solution in WWI was partly the cause of WWII, just as the solution in the 1980's was a cause of the wars that America is participating in right now.

You can call what I am saying naive, or whiny, or wishful, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't take away from the logical points I make.

Resorting to name calling is usually a sign of losing the argument, anyway.

I will concede the fact that what I am saying may be wishful thinking, but consider this, is it more helpful or less helpful than continuing the trends that are gauranteed to lead to more wars?

Because we can

Well, there are a few things wrong with your argument here. First, I'd say since you believe in violence, you aren't allowed to use words.

Franklinstein

I addressed this in the analogy I setup. If you want to continue arguing the analogy, re-read it, though I think it's moot, because...

I will concede the fact that what I am saying may be wishful thinking, but consider this, is it more helpful or less helpful than continuing the trends that are gauranteed to lead to more wars?

Franklinstein

You're not advocating a policy, and admit this is all wishful thinking. I'm not sure what the purpose of continuing this discussion is. There's not any real point of contention; it's just you clarifying what you're wishing for. If you want to keep going, you can address these questions...

However, you do bring up a somewhat valid point. If the majority of the world believed in peace, then a few evil people could still promote violence. I guess what I am hoping for here is that the people of the world will be educated enough to realize that the ways of peace are correct.

Franklinstein

"Correct" for whom, and in what way? If I can advance my cause through violence and threat of force in a world full of push-overs, then how is that incorrect for me? According to whom? And who decided that violence is evil? You're making assumptions in this exchange that have not been established, at least not that you've written to me.