Is it right to rage or start wars?

[Sniper911]

I want everyone's opinion on the topic.....
It can be any war......
I believe some wars were very unnnessasary...

[Omeganitros]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Edit: I nee dto shut up and GTFO of Crit THinking.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Raaaaaaaaaaaagggggeeeeeeee!

[Neonatrias]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

If you want respectable answers, you're going to have to use some better phrasing than that. First off, your spelling can use work. Second, give a little more than "I want your opinions, guys." Give a little background. Give us your opinion and explain why you think that way.

And I can tell you right now. The topic of war and reasonings behind it is probably going to go fine for a few pages before it erupts into a flaming battlefield.

[Patashu]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Obviously not. Notice how one of the seven deadly sins is Wrath?

[trillobyite]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

I support war against rogue states if they are a threat to international or an individual country's security. The UN has failed many times because diplomacy sometimes simply does not work. Without any form of military prowess to intimidate or back up a diplomatic maneuver, diplomacy is practically useless. If negotiation is impossible and a country's security in danger it has the right to attack the threatening country even without international approval.

[Benny1]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

I find war to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. It's a very primal idea, we're stronger, so we get dominance. It may have been a good idea back when it was sticks and stones, but now that we have gotten to nukes and guns, it's a bad bad idea.

Peaceful solutions for the win.

[repeat]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

When you mentioned rage, I immediately thought of road rage. >__<

I'm against war, rage, or any sort of unnecessary violence. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind; cliché, but true.

However, in certain situations, war may be necessary, or at least beneficial to a country. For example, the Civil War was a major step toward the abolition of slavery and prevented the secession of many southern states. Without the events that occurred during that time, would the United States still be the same nation we see today?

[Reach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Is it right? Heh, well, right and wrong do not have tangible definitions; so the answer is it depends.

What do I believe? Moronic or pointless would sum it up. As for what trillo says, yes, but threatening countries are moronic XD Now see, if people wern't stupid/greedy/evil/other to begin with, war would be unnecessary; but the fact is, people are like that. An inherent flaw in every human being. I think it would take a much greater mind to be devoid of war, though I hope one day it will be possible, and I definitely think peaceful solutions to problems are generally achievable already.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Almost all wars seem to come from the clashing of different cultures and/or beliefs. The natural state of human beings seems to be to stick to a small tribe of their own and not mingle with people who are different. Then again intercultural contact also leads to innovation, so it's a tradeoff. Essentially the human race faces problems that no other species faces, mainly due to its extremely weird (by most standards) organization. Our social structure seems to be extraordinarily large and therefore impersonal, which leads to strife between individuals who feel isolated or subgroups who feel shunned.

[aperson]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Almost all wars seem to come from the clashing of different cultures and/or beliefs. The natural state of human beings seems to be to stick to a small tribe of their own and not mingle with people who are different. Then again intercultural contact also leads to innovation, so it's a tradeoff. Essentially the human race faces problems that no other species faces, mainly due to its extremely weird (by most standards) organization. Our social structure seems to be extraordinarily large and therefore impersonal, which leads to strife between individuals who feel isolated or subgroups who feel shunned.

This deals with the fact that societies of people ultimately try to homogenize. It's quite Darwinian, really: Individuals cluster and mold other individuals to have the same moral compass and mental wiring as themselves in order to make society more well-off for themselves. This is because society tends to pander to the majority the most, and if you homogenize society to your mean then you become the majority. This is the reason things like discrimination occur. Ultimately, borders between different cultures are boundaries that allow cultures to start developing different states of homogeneity. This causes a much larger moral and mental gap to arise when these cultures do intermingle, and schismatic differences in areas of high moral gravity are what lead to confrontation.

This is why war, discrimination, prejudice, and the like occur: If you allow nonhomogeneous traits to take over, then you take the 'you-ness' out of society... and no one wants to fade away without leaving a trace. In a sense, it makes the 'you' extinct.

[mailedbypostman]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

War is necessary at times, doesn't make it right.

[Shopowner200]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

In my opinion, war isn't morally right. The idea of killing other pople and destroying things because you can't come to an agreement or can't live in a world with countries unlike your own. War is really never right, but very occasionally it is needed to be fought (World War II).

[aperson]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

In my opinion, war isn't morally right. The idea of killing other pople and destroying things because you can't come to an agreement or can't live in a world with countries unlike your own. War is really never right, but very occasionally it is needed to be fought (World War II).

Opinion. Fragment. Opinion. How intelligent and persuasive!

[Z3ratul]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

War is necessary at times, doesn't make it right.

Right. Wrong. Words.

@AutoAlden- ap, you'll learn, has a knack for intellectually bashing the majority of us.

My opinion? I think that your opinion would probably drastically change if you were directly affected by it... not to say I speak from experience. It's just easy to look at something apathetically when you have an objectional standpoint.

I'm not one to say who does and doesn't deserve death. Ultimately, as long as I and the ones I REALLY care about aren't getting nuked, I probably couldn't care less. Even if I did have some empathy, I don't think it would matter in a larger scheme, since I doubt I'll be changing the path of the world that drastically. Negative, perhaps, but I prefer realistic. Then again, I don't believe in voting- uh oh!

Cruel as this might sound, to hell with the people dieing in other countries. I'm still here, and I still have my indulgences. Selfish? Maybe. All I'm getting at is all the care in the world isn't going to change whatever war is going on (unless of course you're in a position of some sort of power- I'm not, and frankly, don't want to be).

I'm not sure what I'm getting at; I never am all that sure. Hopefully you can decipher something in all my trite logic.

PS: North Korea, sup?