sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,825
- 6,374
- 126
I agree with AndrewR. The cause of war is varied, sometimes it's for territory, other times religion, sometimes for resources, revenge, superiority, inferiority, political philosophy, "destiny" re
ride, and other times it's just a madman thinking he is god. There is no simple answer or cause that can be easily remedied. Each war needs to be looked at individually to find the cause and/or a solution to prevent that war from being repeated. For these reasons there will always be wars, so it's better to be prepared.
ride, and other times it's just a madman thinking he is god. There is no simple answer or cause that can be easily remedied. Each war needs to be looked at individually to find the cause and/or a solution to prevent that war from being repeated. For these reasons there will always be wars, so it's better to be prepared."The causes of war are varied" Territory-and how do you convince yourself that it should be yours? Religion-mines better. Resources-same as territory. Revenge-how justified? political philosophy-mines better. Madman-inferior superior. The idea that these things don't break down into some simple categories doesn't seem accurate. Over and over I see a need for superiority out of some felt but hidden inferiority.
Would you start a war? If not than why must war happen. Are there not numbers of people who would not start a war. How about the born again. Can you picture them killing each other.
I think that to understand what war is, is to understand that war is pathological, the result of a misunderstanding of our selves, a refusal to accept inferiority as a fact, the need to inflict that feeling on the enemy instead.
Einstein say that we are technologically far ahead of where we are emotionally. I couldn't agree more.
I would say that not understanding the unconscious spring which motivate us to go to war means that we may go extinct.
Would you start a war? If not than why must war happen. Are there not numbers of people who would not start a war. How about the born again. Can you picture them killing each other.
I think that to understand what war is, is to understand that war is pathological, the result of a misunderstanding of our selves, a refusal to accept inferiority as a fact, the need to inflict that feeling on the enemy instead.
Einstein say that we are technologically far ahead of where we are emotionally. I couldn't agree more.
I would say that not understanding the unconscious spring which motivate us to go to war means that we may go extinct.
Wars are intiiated by the side that believes the conflict will have a useful outcome. Often they do, examples being the American and French Revolutions, the expansion of the Roman and British empires, and the Communist takeover of China. No moral judgements here, but the methods worked. Wars are maintained as long as both sides disagree about the outcome, and are ended when one side has its will or ability to resist broken by force. War is nasty, but it works, and as long as surrender is worse than fighting to victory nations will try to win. Pacifism is no defense, although heavily armed neutrality worked well for Sweden and Switzerland. America has done rather well from most of its wars, netting independence, territory, national economic development and prosperity, not to mention self-preservation. That democracy exists anywhere is largely due to American warfighting ability, and our nuclear deterrent. BTW I don't see war as a threat to the human race, barring a really comprehensive nuclear holocaust. All the wars, natural disasters, and pandemics in the past century haven't come close to defusing the "population bomb".
Hedonism and Narcissism.
By hedonism I mean the drive to satisfy one's own desires in a way that one believes will ultimately give one pleasure. When one's desires are not met, one seeks whatever means possible to meet them. One may do this subconsciously, but the destructive results are the same.
By narcissism I mean the inability to empathize. Humanity often lacks the ability to truly perceive and feel things the way the "other" feels and perceives them. Hence scapegoating becomes possible and one can justify anything.
Hedonism assumes the meritorious nature of one's own desires. Narcissism destroys the ability to recognize the merit of others as distinct from oneself.
These are two of the many results of pride/ego-centeredness.
Still, in an imperfect world, war is, at times, inevitable. While all humans have hedonistic and narcissistic tendencies, sometimes the disease becomes so malignant and aggressive (and culture-wide) that it must be stopped by force. While most wars were probably futile and changed nothing, some may actually (after a certain point) have been necessary. Perhaps World War II is one example?
Read James 4:1-3.
My two cents worth.
By hedonism I mean the drive to satisfy one's own desires in a way that one believes will ultimately give one pleasure. When one's desires are not met, one seeks whatever means possible to meet them. One may do this subconsciously, but the destructive results are the same.
By narcissism I mean the inability to empathize. Humanity often lacks the ability to truly perceive and feel things the way the "other" feels and perceives them. Hence scapegoating becomes possible and one can justify anything.
Hedonism assumes the meritorious nature of one's own desires. Narcissism destroys the ability to recognize the merit of others as distinct from oneself.
These are two of the many results of pride/ego-centeredness.
Still, in an imperfect world, war is, at times, inevitable. While all humans have hedonistic and narcissistic tendencies, sometimes the disease becomes so malignant and aggressive (and culture-wide) that it must be stopped by force. While most wars were probably futile and changed nothing, some may actually (after a certain point) have been necessary. Perhaps World War II is one example?
Read James 4:1-3.
My two cents worth.
War, its simple... its a 'stupid guy thing'.
think about it, of all wars, man-made disasters, and just plain bad things, how many were caused by women? next to zero.
when the world is ruled by women, we will have peace. women understand the value of life more than men. call it 'alpha-male syndrome'.
and yes, i am a guy.
think about it, of all wars, man-made disasters, and just plain bad things, how many were caused by women? next to zero.
when the world is ruled by women, we will have peace. women understand the value of life more than men. call it 'alpha-male syndrome'.
and yes, i am a guy.
yep,
they proved, when provoked, that they can hang with the nastiest of them. but how many women, compared to men, started a war?
how many women invaded their neighbor, lined up an opposition religious group and had them shot, or just generally did something so heinous as to leave a lingering shadow for decades, or centuries, to follow. face it, testosterone is a bad thing when applied to foreign policy.
war is a stupid-guy-thing... i like that generalization. and it is one that is hard to disprove...
they proved, when provoked, that they can hang with the nastiest of them. but how many women, compared to men, started a war?
how many women invaded their neighbor, lined up an opposition religious group and had them shot, or just generally did something so heinous as to leave a lingering shadow for decades, or centuries, to follow. face it, testosterone is a bad thing when applied to foreign policy.
war is a stupid-guy-thing... i like that generalization. and it is one that is hard to disprove...
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
DaBoneHead
That's because up until now, there have been far fewer women leaders.
Let's all think to the way our girlfriends or wives act at times. Emotional, irrational... and that's on good days. Do you really think there'd be less wars with women in power?
<flame suit on>
That's because up until now, there have been far fewer women leaders.
Let's all think to the way our girlfriends or wives act at times. Emotional, irrational... and that's on good days. Do you really think there'd be less wars with women in power?
<flame suit on>
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
i took a class called the causes of war. read a bunch of cold war theory. one book said states go to war in order to gain a better bargaining position. note how milosevic was offered a bargain by the US, refused it, got the hell bombed out of serbia, then agreed to a very similar bargain. the book said that states have differing opinions of their relative military prowess, they want the bargain that addresses their view of that prowess, and since those views are conflicting they have to go to war to sort out which view is closer to the truth. that book was written by geoffrey blainey. another good book is carl von clausewitz "on war," written by an old prussian campaigner after the napoleonic wars, it was never finished so some things are argued about. anyway, before the napoleonic war, clausewitz claimed, war was a way to reveal information to the other side about your battle capability. so thats very much like the previous book. the napoleonic wars weren't that way though. napoleon was out to conquer all, not merely gain a concession.
then theres the cold war itself. yet another book claimed that ballistic nuclear strategy was a lot like hostage strategy, that is, with ballistic missiles you hold the enemy's cities hostage. interesting stuff.
i ramble...
then theres the cold war itself. yet another book claimed that ballistic nuclear strategy was a lot like hostage strategy, that is, with ballistic missiles you hold the enemy's cities hostage. interesting stuff.
i ramble...
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
dabonehead, gotta mention that the women of a state usually support the war about as much as men do, sometimes more. english women in the great war were proud that their sons were off in france getting shot, maimed, and killed. the more sons, sometimes daughters (ambulance corps) off in france the better, from their point of view.
<<when the world is ruled by women, we will have peace. women understand the value of life more than men. >>
Not necessarily. If women took over today they'd have several thousands of years worth of "mistake history" to go by. Thus there should be fewer wars (same if men or a mixture held power).
But if women were dominant since day one? Would we have experienced more peace? I'm not so certain. Today women are socialized to be more passive and accepting than men. But would they have thousands of years ago? Hmmmm. Ever watch Xena Warrior Princess?
Anyway, moot argument since we're talking about situations in a vaccuum.
Not necessarily. If women took over today they'd have several thousands of years worth of "mistake history" to go by. Thus there should be fewer wars (same if men or a mixture held power).
But if women were dominant since day one? Would we have experienced more peace? I'm not so certain. Today women are socialized to be more passive and accepting than men. But would they have thousands of years ago? Hmmmm. Ever watch Xena Warrior Princess?
Anyway, moot argument since we're talking about situations in a vaccuum.
Yes can you imagine what Hitler or Stalin would have been like if they had PMT (or PMS or whatever its called) every month.
ok people,
the real point of my argument, and yes, let the flaming begin...
men are more violent than women. regardless of monthly biological stuff.
war is violence. It was hitler who stated that 'war is diplomacy by other means' (or something like that)
look at the prisons and see the number of violent inmates, almost all men.
not too long ago, i read where a psychology group had suggestions for raising boys, as opposed to girls. Largely because of the innate violent tendancies of boys. My point really is that violence becomes an ingrained response to stimulus, and as we get older (males) we get bigger toys to play that violence out (no more wiffle ball bats over the head, now we have cruise missles!).
As long as we remain a violent society, war will seem an acceptable response to things we dont like. whether the defender of principle or perpetrator of crimes.
My argument: males are violent. wars are violent. coincidence? I think not!
the real point of my argument, and yes, let the flaming begin...
men are more violent than women. regardless of monthly biological stuff.
war is violence. It was hitler who stated that 'war is diplomacy by other means' (or something like that)
look at the prisons and see the number of violent inmates, almost all men.
not too long ago, i read where a psychology group had suggestions for raising boys, as opposed to girls. Largely because of the innate violent tendancies of boys. My point really is that violence becomes an ingrained response to stimulus, and as we get older (males) we get bigger toys to play that violence out (no more wiffle ball bats over the head, now we have cruise missles!).
As long as we remain a violent society, war will seem an acceptable response to things we dont like. whether the defender of principle or perpetrator of crimes.
My argument: males are violent. wars are violent. coincidence? I think not!
I wouldn't say its about knowing 'too few women'... just knowing too many men.
Its also knowing myself. Violence in men is something that never can be conquered, it can only be contained. That was also in the psychology article I read.
Hey what can I say, I believe that war is a stupid guy thing, of course, i could be wrong...
I am uninformed re:" the "violence and men" thing. It makes sense, I guess. It's definitely interesting.
Re: violence and wars though, I don't think all wars are violent. There has been an economic war between the upper class and the working class that has been non-violent but progressive in nature during several points in history. There was also the Cold War, that although consisted of weapons, was mainly economic in nature.
Re: violence and wars though, I don't think all wars are violent. There has been an economic war between the upper class and the working class that has been non-violent but progressive in nature during several points in history. There was also the Cold War, that although consisted of weapons, was mainly economic in nature.
DaBoneHead,
BoberFett is correct. Men evolved to be generaly bigger, stronger and faster than women not to fight amongst each other but to
protect themselves from women. Dem B-----s are crazy when dey go off.
tommyc
BoberFett is correct. Men evolved to be generaly bigger, stronger and faster than women not to fight amongst each other but to
protect themselves from women. Dem B-----s are crazy when dey go off.
tommycThere seems to be a war of the sexes too.
I have enjoyed reading these posts. They provoke thought. One of the things that occurs to me is that the deeper you go into the subject, the more insane war appears to be. This is totally at odds with the feeling, for example, I got experiencing our entry into the Gulf War as a citizen exposed to the news media. I was totally persuaded, no, lets just say I was a flag waving zelot, that is until I read and saw pictures of the slaughter on the road to Damascus. It was like awakening from a dream, maybe the Planet of the Apes guys when the realized that humanity had "finally done it".
My thought is that war is something that happens to people who are immersed in the tide of history without the realizing that self reflection on how they are being, and can be affected, by events is vital to the escape from a mechanical, possibly suicidal, response, and provides the only avenue for an intelligent, chosen future.
The more who are awake, the better our chances, is my guess.
I have enjoyed reading these posts. They provoke thought. One of the things that occurs to me is that the deeper you go into the subject, the more insane war appears to be. This is totally at odds with the feeling, for example, I got experiencing our entry into the Gulf War as a citizen exposed to the news media. I was totally persuaded, no, lets just say I was a flag waving zelot, that is until I read and saw pictures of the slaughter on the road to Damascus. It was like awakening from a dream, maybe the Planet of the Apes guys when the realized that humanity had "finally done it".
My thought is that war is something that happens to people who are immersed in the tide of history without the realizing that self reflection on how they are being, and can be affected, by events is vital to the escape from a mechanical, possibly suicidal, response, and provides the only avenue for an intelligent, chosen future.
The more who are awake, the better our chances, is my guess.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,825
- 6,374
- 126
Women are just as prone to violence as men(ever watch Springer? ). Women have been "protected" from certain aspects of life for centuries, yet when looking at women leaders from the Queens of Europe to today we see they are still very capable of starting wars. Don't be fooled, just because most wars have men at the helm, it's not because men are more violent, it's simple math(men are usually at the helm).
). Women have been "protected" from certain aspects of life for centuries, yet when looking at women leaders from the Queens of Europe to today we see they are still very capable of starting wars. Don't be fooled, just because most wars have men at the helm, it's not because men are more violent, it's simple math(men are usually at the helm).Why such a negative approach to war? I for one, am glad that WWII occurred, because if everyone had sat around and done nothing, the Germans would have conquered the world by now. I am also glad that the American revolutionary war took place, because without it, the king of England would come down here and start pushing us all around.
Back in the 1910's, Woodrow Wilson signed a pact with the Europeans that "Made War Illegal". LOL! The simple fact is, in disputes, words can't always hack it. You often have to be able to kick the other parties @ss if you want to accomplish your aims. Hey, you win some, you lose some. Sure people get killed, but it's a war goddammnit, it's supposed to happen. Now enough of this sillyness.
Back in the 1910's, Woodrow Wilson signed a pact with the Europeans that "Made War Illegal". LOL! The simple fact is, in disputes, words can't always hack it. You often have to be able to kick the other parties @ss if you want to accomplish your aims. Hey, you win some, you lose some. Sure people get killed, but it's a war goddammnit, it's supposed to happen. Now enough of this sillyness.
War is not bad.
War is a developmental process.
Without war, man would not develop spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually.
Just as an argument needs dialectic tension, man needs war.
War is one of God's ways of teaching us.
Women, when given the opportunity, have rarely taken the moral high ground. Ever seen a woman lawyer in a suit and tie? She will never hesitate to stoop lower than her enemy-male or female. But, she is no worse, or better, than a male lawyer. Anyone so naive as to believe women will save the world is in serious need of a heavy dose of anti-delusional medication.
Of course, I could be wrong.
War is a developmental process.
Without war, man would not develop spiritually, emotionally, or intellectually.
Just as an argument needs dialectic tension, man needs war.
War is one of God's ways of teaching us.
Women, when given the opportunity, have rarely taken the moral high ground. Ever seen a woman lawyer in a suit and tie? She will never hesitate to stoop lower than her enemy-male or female. But, she is no worse, or better, than a male lawyer. Anyone so naive as to believe women will save the world is in serious need of a heavy dose of anti-delusional medication.
Of course, I could be wrong.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
hmmm... hitler must have said something right once then. war is an extension of diplomacy. also the failure of it. diplomacy is the failure of war as well. when war fails, they go back to diplomacy, negotiate cease fires, treaties etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter