Are wars actually as pointless as they seem?

swiftdriver11 said:Just try to wrap your head around every single war ever fought in history. Think about how many people were never even born because their entire lineages were wiped out in those conflicts. Once you realize that, you'll see that we aren't talking about some negligible statistic here...

placidranger said:I agree—that logic held water back when global violence was higher, but it doesn't really hold up today.
What percentage of the global population actually dies a violent death now? Should I go look up the stats? It's a tiny fraction. Negligible, really.

When I say "today," I mean roughly the last fifty years.

Quinn:

What exactly grants one nation the authority to strike at another, solely to seize its wealth while they themselves struggle with such profound scarcity...

It really just comes down to the law of the jungle... that fundamental principle where might makes right. It’s that old, cynical question of why someone chooses to push you around or exert their will over yours... and the answer is usually just because they have the power to do so. Some people are simply wired that way, driven by that impulse to dominate, whether we personally find it acceptable or not... or whether it sits well with our individual moral compasses... it remains an unchangeable reality of human nature...
Quinn:

There simply must be other ways to achieve such an end, ways that are more peaceful and significantly more humane... wouldn't you agree?

They exist, certainly, though they tend to be much more sluggish and taxing... It is simply far easier to seize what you want through force than it is to actually build something through honest labor...

Quinn:

I find myself wondering if an average person, perhaps during one of those periods when gas prices skyrocket and everyone is feeling the squeeze at the pump, would ever truly consider going to war just to get their hands on some crude oil... It seems entirely irrational for the individual, yet it appears to be the standard operating procedure for the ruling structures that hold the reins of power, which is exactly what they have been doing throughout this entire century war... And once they finally secure that oil, or whatever other precious resource they've set their sights on, they amass wealth beyond imagination, much like the robber barons of old... Of course, the public receives a small portion of the spoils, typically as meager compensation for healing their battle wounds, though one has to ask ourselves at what devastating cost that comes... Hold on just a moment... do you truly believe that it is the people themselves who actually desire war?... 😕 I find myself returning to this same conviction time and time again... that nations themselves possess no inherent desire for conflict, but are instead systematically manipulated by warmongering leaders who are bolstered by those devoted followers of truly twisted and controlled minds...

That right there is perhaps your most significant misconception... much like those who hold onto idealism too tightly. There is this persistent, almost poetic notion that a single individual, or perhaps a small handful of them, can somehow lead the masses astray, but I find the reality far more grounded than that. The public is as reliable as a loaf of bread... and quite frankly, most people are driven by their own self-interest. They don't follow leaders out of misplaced devotion; they simply look for someone to make achieving their own desires just a little bit easier...

I was actually sitting there watching an American film about the Vietnam War today... it really gets you thinking...

The Vietnam War serves as a perfect illustration of an ideological conflict where absolutely no one truly wins... though I suppose every single war possesses its own unique characteristics, so perhaps it shouldn't be used as a universal blueprint for everything else...

That sounds like nothing more than a hollow platitude to me... we were essentially left with no choice at all, since everything had already been decided by the higher powers... maybe they didn't necessarily desire that specific outcome, but the people were gradually manipulated into accepting it...

I really have no desire to get bogged down in endless political bickering... if you could just present some actual evidence that these deals were made, then we might have something to discuss... because all this talk regarding conspiracies and secret agreements has surfaced on the politics board hundreds of times before, yet no one ever produces a shred of proof...

You should really try reading Engdahl's book, "century war," as it might just broaden your horizons quite significantly...🙂

Perhaps you could start by telling me what the fundamental thesis of that book actually is...

Kyle Morris7 said:Quinn:

rustymaker5 As Kyle Morris7 says... So, I find myself wondering if we might be able to assume that not everyone is inherently inclined toward conflict... perhaps it isn't a universal truth, but rather something that only feels like a natural state to certain groups—those who, one might argue, possess a more aggressive disposition by nature...

At the very beginning of this discussion, we failed to establish a clear definition for what it actually means for a war to be "natural" to someone... which leaves us in a bit of a bind, really. Because without that foundation, we can only truly debate whether a conflict serves a purpose and who exactly stands to gain from it. It follows, then, that we must consider the possibility that entire nations might reap the benefits of warfare, rather than just a few select individuals at the top... Yet, you have maintained quite firmly throughout our exchange that no nation, as a collective entity, ever finds any benefit in war...

Quinn:

Do you honestly find that acceptable? The idea of one nation subjugating others just to seize their natural resources, or perhaps merely to secure a strategic foothold for even more conquests down the line... does that truly strike you as some sort of "natural law" regarding how nations behave? To my mind, it feels like nothing more than pure, nakedly selfish aggression, driven entirely by self-interest at the absolute expense of our shared humanity...

I find myself unable to accept this... It is truly difficult to reconcile. I believe we are in complete agreement on this point, though I must clarify that my intention was never to pass judgment on whether something is morally sound or righteous, but rather to simply outline the facts as they stand in reality...

rustymaker5 said:The whole thing isn't really about whether wars in human history are "natural" or "unnatural"... 😉
It’s more that the author—who I think was some kind of economic analyst, though I can't quite recall the specifics—is basically just laying out the raw facts from the economic and social spheres of humanity starting from the late 18th century all the way to right now, complete with specific dates, names of key players, and those direct cause-and-effect chains... When you lay out the facts like that, all in one place and following a continuous timeline, it gives you this entirely different, much broader perspective... one where it becomes easier to wrap your head around what happened, how it went down, and why... and if you actually have the analytical chops, maybe you can even pinpoint exactly what is happening today and why it's happening...

Kyle Morris7 said:Quinn:

rustymaker5 As Kyle Morris7 says... So, I find myself wondering if we might be able to assume that not everyone is inherently inclined toward conflict... perhaps it isn't a universal truth, but rather something that only feels like a natural state to certain groups—those who, one might argue, possess a more aggressive disposition by nature...

At the very beginning of this discussion, we failed to establish a clear definition for what it actually means for a war to be "natural" to someone... which leaves us in a bit of a bind, really. Because without that foundation, we can only truly debate whether a conflict serves a purpose and who exactly stands to gain from it. It follows, then, that we must consider the possibility that entire nations might reap the benefits of warfare, rather than just a few select individuals at the top... Yet, you have maintained quite firmly throughout our exchange that no nation, as a collective entity, ever finds any benefit in war...

Quinn:

Do you honestly find that acceptable? The idea of one nation subjugating others just to seize their natural resources, or perhaps merely to secure a strategic foothold for even more conquests down the line... does that truly strike you as some sort of "natural law" regarding how nations behave? To my mind, it feels like nothing more than pure, nakedly selfish aggression, driven entirely by self-interest at the absolute expense of our shared humanity...

I find myself unable to accept this... It is truly difficult to reconcile. I believe we are in complete agreement on this point, though I must clarify that my intention was never to pass judgment on whether something is morally sound or righteous, but rather to simply outline the facts as they stand in reality...

But honestly, every war benefits someone—specifically, those who pull the strings.

Of course, modern conflicts aren't always about simple, direct theft.
The US didn't just target Iraq; they also secured massive new markets for their own domestic industries.

swiftcobra15 said:In this instance, you look at the American defense industry: profits just kept climbing for as long as the fighting lasted.

It’s a given that no nation actually benefits from being caught in the crossfire.
Ideologies are usually just a convenient smokescreen for looting and lining the pockets of a select few.

Though, of course, modern warfare isn't limited to simple, direct looting...
Americans didn't just strip assets from Iraq; they effectively carved out an incredibly lucrative market for their own domestic industries...

Kyle Morris7 said:From what I have gathered while reading various interviews and debates surrounding Engdahl's work, his worldview seems remarkably similar to that of Noam Chomsky. Wouldn't you agree? I have read two of Chomsky's books myself, and for the most part, I find myself in agreement with him, even if he does occasionally exhibit certain biases or lacks a full grasp of certain situations—for instance, his assessment regarding Mexico was quite misguided...

Kyle Morris7 said:In this particular instance, we're looking at the American military-industrial complex, where profits continued to climb steadily as long as the fighting persisted.

It goes without saying that no war provides any actual benefit to the citizens caught in the middle of it...
Ideologies, if one looks closely enough, often serve as little more than a convenient veneer for plunder, or rather, the enrichment of a few select groups...

If your argument is that the average American benefits from what is looted,
that might hold water if you consider the lives of all the killed and maimed (both physically and mentally)
Americans to be cheap. The people who orchestrate these wars aren't the ones on the front lines
(nor do they send their own sons to fight), yet they walk away with the lion's share of the spoils.

No all nations involved in a conflict always end up losing.

rustymaker5 said:I’ve always been a believer in just consuming as much information as possible, looking at every angle and every different perspective available so that I can filter through the noise and build my own conclusions... I haven't actually read any Chomsky yet, but I probably should. Got any specific recommendations?

swiftcobra15 said:But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

No Everyone... When one begins to contemplate the vast, heavy burden placed upon the shoulders of the various nations and peoples who find themselves caught in the gears of war... it truly makes one wonder about the sheer scale of the human cost involved... because it isn't just about the soldiers on the front lines, is it? It is about the entire fabric of a society being pulled apart, from the smallest towns in the Midwest to the busiest streets in New York City... and how every single individual becomes a silent witness to the shifting tides of history... which leads me to think that the psychological weight of such conflicts lingers far longer than the actual fighting itself... if only we could truly grasp the depth of that collective grief... always... They are simply losing ground... everything seems to be slipping away from them, if you ask me...

swiftdriver11 said:So, I’ve been chewing on this idea for a bit, and I think I’ve landed on a specific conclusion. It seems to me that nature—which is constantly being squeezed by the relentless expansion of the human population—has essentially found a way to check our species' monopoly over the planet.
Given that modern medical breakthroughs are constantly extending human lifespans, which places massive pressure on the entire ecosystem, it feels like warfare has evolved to take the place that diseases used to occupy.
Do you all think that wars are just another mechanism through which nature manages us? In other words, we're just animals, and we're the ones most threatening the balance.
If that logic holds up, then it follows that war isn't necessarily an absolute evil.🤷

Look, I know, I know—don't go labeling me some kind of heartless monster or start throwing examples from the American Civil War in my face. But if you really step back and think about it, this is just nature playing its hand against us.
I can already hear people saying that war has always existed, but let's be honest: we have never seen weaponry this devastating, and we have certainly never seen death tolls on this scale.
I'm curious to hear what you guys think.

rustymaker5 said:The whole thing isn't really about whether wars in human history are "natural" or "unnatural"... 😉
It’s more that the author—who I think was some kind of economic analyst, though I can't quite recall the specifics—is basically just laying out the raw facts from the economic and social spheres of humanity starting from the late 18th century all the way to right now, complete with specific dates, names of key players, and those direct cause-and-effect chains... When you lay out the facts like that, all in one place and following a continuous timeline, it gives you this entirely different, much broader perspective... one where it becomes easier to wrap your head around what happened, how it went down, and why... and if you actually have the analytical chops, maybe you can even pinpoint exactly what is happening today and why it's happening...

Kyle Morris7 said:In this particular instance, we're looking at the American military-industrial complex, where profits continued to climb steadily as long as the fighting persisted.

It goes without saying that no war provides any actual benefit to the citizens caught in the middle of it...
Ideologies, if one looks closely enough, often serve as little more than a convenient veneer for plunder, or rather, the enrichment of a few select groups...

Those are just arbitrary claims with no actual foundation.

The rulers always gain, while the majority of the people only suffer the losses.

swiftcobra15 said:But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

But wars can be beneficial to nations as well, if you consider the broader picture... I believe I laid out that explanation in my previous posts... And honestly, even you seem to concede that point in your very last sentence...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Kyle Morris7;12174693 said:

Those leaders didn't just fall from the sky; they were elected by the people.

I suppose you aren't aware that A. Hitler actually came to power through a legal "democratic" process.
Democracy is essentially a political framework designed to maximize profit growth,
which is exactly why big corporations favor it whenever they can.

At the polls, voters are left with the illusion that they are making meaningful decisions.

Perhaps these sobering accounts will help you realize exactly WHO wars serve and WHAT they achieve:

Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us...html?th&emc=th

Kyle Morris7 said:1. Wars are always instigated by a small handful of leaders, while the vast majority of the public is against them.
Only when propaganda (lies) convinces them that they are under threat from an enemy,
does a larger portion of the population agree to the war and the sacrifices it demands.

2. Only a tiny minority profits from these wars, while a massive number of people suffer the consequences.

3. Your second point doesn't logically follow from your first (you're jumping to conclusions),
but it is true that rulers pay their own workers much better than those in subjugated lands.
Even so, "economic superpowers" (like the USA) still have tens of millions of homeless people
and other impoverished citizens, not to mention the wounded, PTSD, and other "gifts" of war.

In short: You haven't provided a single valid argument—just empty assertions based on prejudice. 👎

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

A perfect way to see this is by comparing the USA and Japan.

Japan lost the war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation that essentially has more people trapped in cycles of debt than independent farmers,
tens of millions living in poverty or without homes,
millions of children lacking health insurance,
and some of the unhealthiest citizens on the planet.

swiftcobra15 said:

Kyle Morris7 said:The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a Killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and The stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.
About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, including little 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father tragically lashed out against a wall while recovering in Texas from a blast near Fallujah that had cost him his foot and caused severe brain trauma.

swiftcobra15 said:But these leaders were elected through our democratic processes; they didn't just descend from the heavens... The people who cast their ballots for them bear the responsibility for everything they do, including the decision to enter a conflict. If things functioned exactly as you claim, then ninety-nine percent of the population would simply vote for parties that advocate for peace, disarmament, and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. This idea regarding propaganda feels like mere wishful thinking to me... It would imply that ninety-nine percent of the people are somehow intellectually deficient if they could be so easily manipulated into supporting bloodshed...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.

Once again, you haven't actually provided any arguments to support that point...
You suggest that I lack arguments, yet I have laid mine out clearly, whereas you have offered nothing but a simple denial of my perspective...

2. An incredibly small number of people profit from these wars, while an immense number suffer the negative consequences.