War

[Freeman The Master]

War kills people for no reason.

 

no my friend War dose not kill Government and Politics do war is just an aftermath.

[Static]

War kills people for no reason.

 

no my friend War dose not kill Government and Politics do war is just an aftermath.

 

You are wrong as well sir.

 

People kill people. Meteorites and sharks can kill people too, but in the relevant context, it is people, not government, that kills people.

[~Shore]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

[Static]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

[PrometheusMFD]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding, right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[Freeman The Master]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

No the Isreal Terrorists are unethical because they fight for a unseen God that more then the world believes in,.

And lastly i agree with Prome everybody has there own view on the world around it. Hell in the American government eye i am a Terrorist but in my own i am a someone peaceful.

[~Shore]

Following up on Static, even if the terrorists are unethical we're still totally in the wrong here and have been for some time. The problem with my logic is that, while it is essentially right, it is also easily manipulated. I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm just saying if you've got missiles flying at you you fight back, or if all your food is cut off you fight back. But you don't fight over money, or power, or most of the BS that wars are fought for. Man loves a good struggle for survival because it's in his nature. But when the struggle for survival is initiated by greedy politicians, but powered by the primal thrill. We have to see past that if we want to avoid war when possible.

[Static]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

[PrometheusMFD]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

 

No, they became terrorists when they hijacked planes, killed hundreds if not thousands of people pointlessly, declared war on the US despite a lack of country, and attack our soldiers in civilian clothing.

And ethics have nothing to do with war. You fight to move forward or you fight to protect yourself.

[Azmodius]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

 

No, they became terrorists when they hijacked planes, killed hundreds if not thousands of people pointlessly, declared war on the US despite a lack of country, and attack our soldiers in civilian clothing.

And ethics have nothing to do with war. You fight to move forward or you fight to protect yourself.

 

Sir, I should like to inform you that your argument is flawed.

[Static]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

 

No, they became terrorists when they hijacked planes, killed hundreds if not thousands of people pointlessly, declared war on the US despite a lack of country, and attack our soldiers in civilian clothing.

And ethics have nothing to do with war. You fight to move forward or you fight to protect yourself.

 

For the record: 2,997 people died in 9/11.

 

But you missed the point.

 

9/11 wasn't unprovoked, actions are rarely unprovoked. The US sphere of influence was moving further and further into the Middle East. We used the Taliban and other Afghani forces during the Cold War to fight off the Russians, basically trading our resources so that our soldiers did not have to die. The US does a lot of things that are "asking for it" if you look at those things for what they are. We committed injustice to them, we were just much more subtle with it.

 

Ethics is why there are wars. My god is better than yours and you disagree, so we will fight. All problems in the world that are not caused by the world are caused by fundamental differences.

[Красивая Ведьма]

Well' date=' try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

[/quote']

 

That is true. The perspective on the “terrorists” has changed because the war has changed. The Soviets were America's enemy at the time so we did what we had to do so that we would win over them without direct warfare. They did the same things that we did to the "freedom fighters" with communist Cuba. Furthermore, the Soviet Union and the U.S. tried to bring each other down without going into direct war because it would start a nuclear war which could greatly damage if not eliminate all countries in the world. The forces we manipulated in the Cold War do not hate us for that reason. They consider us "infidels" because we are not a theocratic state under Islam like them. It is a good thing that American influence reached the Middle East. Do you even know what a dark age the area is trapped in! American influence could save them from this.

 

People will fight over such things forever. Everyone will never agree. It just isn't our nature. Hopefully in time we can deal with disagreements in a democratic manner of debate and vote. That is the ideal world under democracy which will allow us to disagree and not kill to make a decision.

 

No person thinks that they are the evil one. Both sides of the war think that they are right. However, that fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight for what we believe. As I have said, we should be able to settle disagreements without violence, but that doesn't mean that the other party wouldn't try to incite violence.

[EocDragon]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

 

No, they became terrorists when they hijacked planes, killed hundreds if not thousands of people pointlessly, declared war on the US despite a lack of country, and attack our soldiers in civilian clothing.

And ethics have nothing to do with war. You fight to move forward or you fight to protect yourself.

 

For the record: 2,997 people died in 9/11.

 

But you missed the point.

 

9/11 wasn't unprovoked, actions are rarely unprovoked. The US sphere of influence was moving further and further into the Middle East. We used the Taliban and other Afghani forces during the Cold War to fight off the Russians, basically trading our resources so that our soldiers did not have to die. The US does a lot of things that are "asking for it" if you look at those things for what they are. We committed injustice to them, we were just much more subtle with it.

 

Ethics is why there are wars. My god is better than yours and you disagree, so we will fight. All problems in the world that are not caused by the world are caused by fundamental differences.

 

Your Afghanistan arguement is incorrect. The United States, along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other predominatly Muslim nations, supplied an Islamic based insurgency force called the mujahideen to combat the communist-based Soviet-backed PDPA. We did not use the Afghani's as a disposable force, we supported a pro-religious based government to overthrow and corrupt Soviet-backed government. You could liken the war to a Soviet Vietnamn. And, if you want to be technical, Osama Bin Laden came to power during the war, by using his influence and resources to recruit fighters for the insurgents. You could say that Bin Laden would never had been in the position to order the attacks on the Towers had the United States not supported his side of the war. His reasons to attack the United States included a failing economic situation, the US support of Isreal, and the stationing of US troops in the Middle East after the Gulf War.

 

What are Ethics? Ethics are what a group of people decide is acceptable and unacceptable. If all the people of the world believed that eating the head of the deceased would grant them special powers, everyone would be doing it, and it would be okay. Furthermore, Ethics change over time and across cultures. Slavery used to ethical, then things changed and America had a war that cost more American lives than any other conflict in history. Ethics aren't universal and are poorly contrived reasons to kill large numbers of people.

[zack was here :p]

its should be yet it shouldnt be

it keeps us from destroying the evermnet and brings the people we are allise with closer

if we didnt have war would pople still attack us yes

if we did have war would people attack us no becouse who would want to attack a person that can dfend them selves.

[Static]

War is only justified when the cost of not fighting back is greater than the cost of fighting.

 

What justifies death?

 

Ethics.

 

Who's ethic's are to say whether or not war is worthwhile?

 

America? Leave ethics in the hands of the country that took 100 years to give rights to blacks after 100 years of keeping them enslaved?

 

I say the Middle East is the more justified side in modern warfare; and I think that your logic also proves that my opinion on the matter is sensible.

 

... You're kidding' date=' right?

The terrorist organizations that the US has been fighting are anything but ethical (we don't kill our pows and send the video to the opposing government)

The groups that Isreal is fighting are not very ethical because they attacked unprovoked.

And a past policy (which was viewed world wide as correct, mind you) is no excuse for the status of today.

Now, back to the debate, no matter what I believe, it would be impossible. People would view different things and some will take that as a threat to what they believe.

[/quote']

 

Well, try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

 

No, they became terrorists when they hijacked planes, killed hundreds if not thousands of people pointlessly, declared war on the US despite a lack of country, and attack our soldiers in civilian clothing.

And ethics have nothing to do with war. You fight to move forward or you fight to protect yourself.

 

For the record: 2,997 people died in 9/11.

 

But you missed the point.

 

9/11 wasn't unprovoked, actions are rarely unprovoked. The US sphere of influence was moving further and further into the Middle East. We used the Taliban and other Afghani forces during the Cold War to fight off the Russians, basically trading our resources so that our soldiers did not have to die. The US does a lot of things that are "asking for it" if you look at those things for what they are. We committed injustice to them, we were just much more subtle with it.

 

Ethics is why there are wars. My god is better than yours and you disagree, so we will fight. All problems in the world that are not caused by the world are caused by fundamental differences.

 

Your Afghanistan arguement is incorrect. The United States, along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other predominatly Muslim nations, supplied an Islamic based insurgency force called the mujahideen to combat the communist-based Soviet-backed PDPA. We did not use the Afghani's as a disposable force, we supported a pro-religious based government to overthrow and corrupt Soviet-backed government. You could liken the war to a Soviet Vietnamn. And, if you want to be technical, Osama Bin Laden came to power during the war, by using his influence and resources to recruit fighters for the insurgents. You could say that Bin Laden would never had been in the position to order the attacks on the Towers had the United States not supported his side of the war. His reasons to attack the United States included a failing economic situation, the US support of Isreal, and the stationing of US troops in the Middle East after the Gulf War.

 

What are Ethics? Ethics are what a group of people decide is acceptable and unacceptable. If all the people of the world believed that eating the head of the deceased would grant them special powers, everyone would be doing it, and it would be okay. Furthermore, Ethics change over time and across cultures. Slavery used to ethical, then things changed and America had a war that cost more American lives than any other conflict in history. Ethics aren't universal and are poorly contrived reasons to kill large numbers of people.

 

Fair enough I guess on the Afghanistan issue.

 

Ethics are defined not by people, but by the predominant concept of Justice that exists between and rules over people. Yeah, I am aware that such things are the result of people, but in the current moment, it is not based on the individuals themselves from which ethics are derived. The Torah and the Veda's were all written about 5000-6000 years ago, and many groups of people have remained attached to the idea of how to live one's life as a good person based on the writings and the ideas and concepts of justice that have come into creation because of the writings. These writings express justice in certain perspectives, and people choose to believe the writings because that is the way they see the world. Ethics that are from history or religious backgrounds will always play a role in the ethics of the world populous. Sure, it might all be opinion, but that does not take away from the fact that differences in it are what cause/play a large role in the cause of war.

---

Well' date=' try looking at it from their perspective.

 

Many of these "terrorists" were used by the United States during the late 70's to fight Soviet forces. We gave them resources, food, etc... so that they could die in the place of our troops. All of this only because we didn't want the Union to expand further into the Middle East.

 

Men who we once called "freedom fighters" while they fought our enemy, have become "terrorists" because we are now their enemy. I'm not trying to downplay anything that happened on September 11, 2001, but they are a people who will fight for what they believe in. Al Qaeda fights for a Islamic Theocratic Middle East while our Marines fight for a Democratic open market Middle East. Same fighting just with different ethics. I'm not going to say that torturing POW's is in the right, but seeing nation's under one god, at least for me, is.

 

There are many idea's of justice. People will fight over them until either we are all dead or until everyone ends up agreeing. Personally, I'd like to see the latter.

[/quote']

 

That is true. The perspective on the “terrorists” has changed because the war has changed. The Soviets were America's enemy at the time so we did what we had to do so that we would win over them without direct warfare. They did the same things that we did to the "freedom fighters" with communist Cuba. Furthermore, the Soviet Union and the U.S. tried to bring each other down without going into direct war because it would start a nuclear war which could greatly damage if not eliminate all countries in the world. The forces we manipulated in the Cold War do not hate us for that reason. They consider us "infidels" because we are not a theocratic state under Islam like them. It is a good thing that American influence reached the Middle East. Do you even know what a dark age the area is trapped in! American influence could save them from this.

 

People will fight over such things forever. Everyone will never agree. It just isn't our nature. Hopefully in time we can deal with disagreements in a democratic manner of debate and vote. That is the ideal world under democracy which will allow us to disagree and not kill to make a decision.

 

No person thinks that they are the evil one. Both sides of the war think that they are right. However, that fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight for what we believe. As I have said, we should be able to settle disagreements without violence, but that doesn't mean that the other party wouldn't try to incite violence.

 

See for once I agree with you, except on the whole dark age thing.

 

There really isn't a need for me to refute that at all is there?

 

Acknowledge that I read your response, peace.

[Dark]

I don't know if anyone stated this, but I might as well.

 

America already knew about 9/11 earlier. The government chose not to do anything so they had a reason to go to war.

 

Also, without war, we wouldn't have a sufficient way of killing people beside torture and mass disease outbreaks.

 

War is when two sides disagree, and it will never happen when the world is in harmony. If you think that is possible, please place your hand on your face and say "I am an lolfail."

[Static]

I don't know if anyone stated this' date=' but I might as well.

 

America already knew about 9/11 earlier. The government chose not to do anything so they had a reason to go to war.

 

Also, without war, we wouldn't have a sufficient way of killing people beside torture and mass disease outbreaks.

 

War is when two sides disagree, and it will never happen when the world is in [b']harmony. If you think that is possible, please place your hand on your face and say "I am an lolfail."[/b]

 

Umm, the Nazi's came close and don't you ever forget it.

[Красивая Ведьма]

I don't know if anyone stated this' date=' but I might as well.

 

America already knew about 9/11 earlier. The government chose not to do anything so they had a reason to go to war.

 

Also, without war, we wouldn't have a sufficient way of killing people beside torture and mass disease outbreaks.

 

War is when two sides disagree, and it will never happen when the world is in harmony. If you think that is possible, please place your hand on your face and say "I am an lolfail."

[/quote']

 

Turbulence will always exist, and ruling through fear/ military might will only encourage more disagreements. Disagreements are not the issue. The problem is how radicals choose to resolve the conflict. Almost any way is god as long as violence doesn't enter the picture. The sad fact is it almost always does.

 

We can't abolish war because humans aren't a collective with one mind. People with differing opinions should be free to speak, but never to hurt others. If we did all live under one government that wouldn't stop wars. I'm sure somehow rebellion would begin as well.

[HORUS]

Didn't read the thread.

 

 

I say we kill more people. That makes it more interesting.

[Tabris]

Should the human race abolish war? Or is war a natural human thing.

 

Discuss.

 

How do ye abolish aggression?

[TheHuaHauh]

Funny thing, I was watching a documentary on Animal Planet a few years ago. One of the large discussions in the documentary was how two different large groups of baboons would often feud and fight over territories, sometimes killing young from the other baboons' tribes. I think that war is an all over unavoidable thing, it's in our genes. In order to make peace, you must clear way for war.

[OMGAKITTY]

Oh hay. You can't "abolish" war.

[Wuu.]

OMGAKITTY is right.

 

War will never be abolished. Our natures are to destructive, proven with us killing 2/3 of the worldwide animal species.

Humanity is to greedy and brutal, alas we are the superior race of this planet so all them other beotchz gotz tah STFU 'n GTFO.

[HORUS]

If the world abolished war, I would instantly declare war on the world.

[Willieh]

' pid='2474899' dateline='1246514704']

If the world abolished war' date=' I would instantly declare war on the world.

[/quote']

 

If you declared war on the world, I would abolish it.