Are wars actually as pointless as they seem?

rustymaker5 said:

First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...
Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
How is he not a unique case? Every other imperialist power carries out liquidations against opponents if they offer resistance, or at worst, conducts reprisals against members of a people due to assassinations carried out by individuals from that same people or state. Hitler and the Nazis were the only ones who liquidated entire peoples who weren't even their opponents—the Jews and the Gypsies. Isn't that specifically Hitler's idea? Or had such things happened before? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not quite sure why you attach so much weight to whether something is "natural" or not... If something is natural, it doesn't inherently mean it is good or bad... The only thing is that in terms of manipulation, it becomes easier to lead people astray if one claims a behavior is natural. But I suspect it doesn't really matter which motive is cited for the purpose of manipulation... If the goal is to awaken evil within people, then it matters little whether one uses the term "natural," "useful," "good," or something else entirely... What truly matters is the persuasiveness of the manipulator...
A poor speaker won't be able to sell even the finest wine, whereas a good one could sell even sugar-coated alcohol...

Kyle Morris7 said:

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.

If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
If you look at the objective statistics for both countries, it becomes clear that Japan outperforms the USA in almost every category.
Japan lost a war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation with more people trapped in cycles of poverty than independent farmers,
tens of millions struggling with extreme hardship or homelessness,
millions of children lacking proper health insurance,
along with having one of the least healthy populations on the planet...

If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
Japan lost a war and endured two nuclear bombs.
Meanwhile, the USA is a nation with more people trapped in cycles of poverty than independent farmers,
tens of millions struggling with extreme hardship or homelessness,
millions of children lacking proper health insurance,
along with having one of the least healthy populations on the planet...

If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
If you look at the objective statistics and compare these two nations, you will see that Japan comes out ahead in almost every metric.
It really depends on how one chooses to define "better"... If we are using your specific criteria, then perhaps they are. But if we are talking about the actual quality of life, I don't think so. Most Japanese people work themselves to the bone and live in cramped little apartments with very little comfort... sitting on the floor and all that sort of thing. Some friends of mine who have visited Japan actually claimed that, compared to us, the Japanese live quite poorly...
It's pretty clear you don't know much about Japan (and honestly, neither do your friends), so it might be worth doing a little homework.

You could even start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

And if you find Japan so repulsive, take a closer look at Germany.
She actually recovered and progressed faster than the Allied powers after World War II
and has far surpassed both France and the United Kingdom.

Kyle Morris7 said:First off, Hitler represents an extreme case, likely a singular phenomenon within the last five centuries... Furthermore, alongside Hitler, there were millions upon millions of smaller Hitlers who provided his support... No single individual is ever truly responsible for such monumental atrocities, rather it is always the masses who sustain them... Shifting all the blame onto one man is merely a psychological tactic used to cleanse one's own conscience... What you mentioned regarding Iraq certainly doesn't touch upon the core essence of that conflict, nor any other war, and it really doesn't impact the vast majority of people...

Well, I don't think Hitler was some freak occurrence beyond the norm... He was just the specific figurehead chosen to pull the strings he pulled. We tend to blow his importance out of proportion, giving him a level of significance that he didn't actually possess as just another mediocre guy walking the earth...
The reality is that nations effectively "choose" their leaders, and that's how it worked back then too—an entire population manipulated by economic collapse, social chaos, and aggressive propaganda that pointed fingers at scapegoats to explain away their misery... They chose to follow this ugly, scrawny leader who happened to be a gifted orator capable of stirring up the lowest human impulses without breaking a sweat...
Ultimately, the people bear the blame because they allowed themselves to be led astray, essentially legitimizing evil through their own choices... And honestly, the whole idea that war is just part of the natural human condition only makes things worse...
How is he not a unique case? Every other imperialist power carries out liquidations against opponents if they offer resistance, or at worst, conducts reprisals against members of a people due to assassinations carried out by individuals from that same people or state. Hitler and the Nazis were the only ones who liquidated entire peoples who weren't even their opponents—the Jews and the Gypsies. Isn't that specifically Hitler's idea? Or had such things happened before? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not quite sure why you attach so much weight to whether something is "natural" or not... If something is natural, it doesn't inherently mean it is good or bad... The only thing is that in terms of manipulation, it becomes easier to lead people astray if one claims a behavior is natural. But I suspect it doesn't really matter which motive is cited for the purpose of manipulation... If the goal is to awaken evil within people, then it matters little whether one uses the term "natural," "useful," "good," or something else entirely... What truly matters is the persuasiveness of the manipulator...
A poor speaker won't be able to sell even the finest wine, whereas a good one could sell even sugar-coated alcohol...
Are they really the only ones, though? Don't the leaders behind every uprising, every revolution, and every single war start by wiping out their political and economic rivals... anyone who might potentially obstruct or complicate their pursuit of interests? And for a man as mentally unstable and fanatical as Hitler, the Jews fit his narrative perfectly, since they held onto most of the wealth back then—the banks, the factories, the small businesses, the department stores...
And it doesn't strike me as odd that he probably found some justification in Malthusianism for dealing with the "overpopulation" problem—something that supposedly prevented the Aryan race from reaching its superhuman potential—so they decided to solve it by exterminating the Jews, the Gypsies, the mentally ill, the Slavs...
🤷 but personally, I suspect that the idea wasn't originally "Hitler's alone."

p.s.
How did that "confused" guy end up at the top of the thread? 😕

I find myself reflecting on what rustymaker5 mentioned earlier... it really does make one wonder about the underlying complexities of the situation we are discussing, doesn't it? It seems as though we often overlook the most fundamental aspects of these matters, drifting instead into much more superficial debates that don't quite touch the heart of the issue at hand... which is truly a shame, I suppose...

Are they truly the only ones... I can't help but wonder if this is actually the case, because when you look back at history, isn't it true that the instigators behind every major movement, every revolution, and even those devastating wars, always seem to prioritize neutralizing their political and economic rivals first... essentially clearing out anyone who might potentially obstruct or complicate the pursuit of their ultimate interests...
When considering Hitler, one must look at him as a deeply mentally unstable and fanatic individual, and in that chaotic environment, the Jews found themselves in a position that was quite distinct, primarily because they held such a significant portion of the nation's wealth within their grasp... you had everything from the major banks and massive factories to smaller businesses and grand department stores all under their influence, which created a very specific dynamic during those dark times...

Those people were enemies. A Jew or a Gypsy was never considered an opponent in that sense. And honestly, there wasn't any real financial gain to be found in exterminating the Jews; if anything, it just caused massive economic damage... I think I saw a documentary on cable recently, maybe on the History Channel, discussing this very point. The core argument was that the sheer logistical cost of organizing and executing such a genocide actually outweighed any profit they could have squeezed from looted assets. On top of that, you have to consider how many people were tied up in those operations instead of being out on the front lines fighting. So, if you look at it through a purely cold, calculated lens, it would have been far more beneficial for the Nazis to simply recruit the Jewish population to fight on their side rather than killing them off. That is really what makes Hitler and Nazism so uniquely terrifying—beyond the obvious psychopathology, of course...

It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising that he found such fertile ground in Malthusian theory to address those supposed "overpopulation" issues... the kind of logic used to claim that certain groups were somehow hindering the true potential of the master race... which led them to the horrific decision to systematically eliminate Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, and Slavs...
🤷 But, if you'll allow me to offer my own personal perspective on the matter... I tend to think that... I had been sitting there, staring out at the skyline, just letting my thoughts drift through various possibilities... and then, quite suddenly, a single idea began to take shape in my mind... it was subtle at first, almost ephemeral, but I feel compelled to share it here, if you will permit me... It wasn't originally phrased as "Hitler's personally"...

There are rumors circulating that his primary inspiration was actually the Turks who carried out the genocide against the Armenians back in 1915...

blueheron62 said:I’d say wars are just part of being human—it’s that aggressive streak that tends to flare up when you cram too many people into one tight space. It’s interesting how areas with high birth rates often overlap with those volatile regions where conflict keeps popping up; that’s definitely a factor. Then there’s the other point already mentioned: the whole cycle of history repeating itself.
I wouldn't go as far as saying war is necessary, but it feels "natural" once things reach a breaking point through overextension or deep-seated frustration—and let's be honest, those two usually go hand in hand.

If you actually want to understand the connections, how they function, and what drives wars:

swiftdriver11 said:Look, let me put it this way. I believe all those economic and political justifications are merely the immediate excuses used to trigger these conflicts. I suspect the true cause—if you can even call it that—is some kind of biological chip nature has embedded into our subconscious.
I’ll give you a clear example of how this works in the wild. For instance, if humans wipe out a sparrow population, the byproduct is an explosion in the worm population (which they eat). The following year, you'll see a much larger surge in the sparrow population than usual, simply because nature demands that balance be restored.
Could something similar be happening with humans?🤷

In other words, the issue is that nature didn't install that same balancing chip in us or any
other species on this planet... every species exists within a certain level of balance, even the apex predators
live in a way that secures a future for themselves and their offspring... every apex predator
except for the top of the food chain, which is us—just a bunch of fools acting like a virus that’s slowly killing this planet...

Kyle Morris7 said:I find myself circling back to that same old dilemma we haven’t quite unraveled, and frankly, it feels like something we might never truly resolve... Is human aggression something woven into our very DNA, or is it merely something we pick up along the way through socialization? If it is indeed an innate part of our biology, then war becomes an inevitable consequence of our existence, a shadow we can never truly outrun. In such a scenario, preventing future conflicts seems almost impossible...
However, if this aggression is learned behavior, then there is still a glimmer of hope that we might actually take action to change things.
But regardless of which side of that philosophical divide we land on, those of us who stand firmly against war ought to operate on a micro level, doing what little we can to reduce the number of people predisposed toward violence. The trouble is, we peace-seekers seem to be in the minority most of the time. On the other hand, it seems the majority of people don't actually desire war when it finally arrives at their doorstep. How can that be? Is it some inexplicable paradox... or perhaps just pure irrationality?
Could it be a deep-seated desire for dominance? That is my suspicion, at least...
Just as one individual seeks to exert power over another, entire groups seek to dominate other groups, and they won't hesitate to wage war to achieve that supremacy. I really cannot bring myself to agree with the common notion that wars are always caused by a few rogue leaders while the masses remain unwilling participants. If the public truly didn't want war, they wouldn't consistently elect such aggressive figures to positions of power. And yet, more often than not, that is precisely what happens. It seems the masses choose a leader who then acts upon their collective desires and interests. Most sociologists and psychologists argue the exact opposite—that a single leader somehow hypnotizes or manipulates the crowd—but I suspect that theory is little more than a way for people to bury their heads in the sand...

Mass is... Always... It was like a flock of sheep led by shepherds, though one can only wonder about the true nature of those pulling the strings...
It suits them perfectly... they’ll slaughter a few million sheep whenever a famine hits, just to ensure they get exactly what they need...
The sheep possess everything—their meat represents the military, their wool constitutes the capital and material wealth... but that is only until they realize they aren't actually meant to be part of the flock...
Listen, if they’ve slipped or even just show a tendency to spiral out of control...

Kyle Morris7 said:If they’re being driven by bad actors, then we’re talking about hundreds of millions of them... the entire population of the global superpowers...

I’d argue it isn't just those specific "problematic" groups... everyone subject to this kind of
orchestrated manipulation falls under that same umbrella... it really just comes down to how those at the top
coordinate their efforts based on their own interests... the masses exist merely to serve
those agendas, nothing more... the public simply drifts through an unconscious state of servitude to their masters...

I suppose I should address what Anthony Rivera17 was implying earlier, though his perspective seems rather narrow when you consider the broader implications of how these systems actually function... It is all quite predictable once you look past the surface level noise that most people mistake for substance. There is an exhaustion that comes with watching these patterns repeat themselves, day after day, without anyone truly grasping the scale of the machinery at play... [User Name] says:
At first, you’re the one being crushed by someone else's shadow. You fight like hell just to carve out your own space, only to realize that once you've finally dismantled the competition, you've become the very force terrorizing everyone else... It seems wars are an inevitability, since the friction of differing perspectives and conflicting worldviews will never truly vanish... Humans haven't truly occupied the role of hunter or predator for quite some time now—unless we’re talking about our treatment of animals—so most modern conflicts seem to be nothing more than the byproduct of two corrupt politicians on opposing sides playing games with lives that aren't their own...

You are still quite far from uncovering the true catalyst behind these wars... at least until history is stripped of its illusions and laid bare against the cold, hard facts...
If you take an unnamed perspective—one that hasn't been spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media...
Once you pull back the curtain on the media, the entire picture shifts... and that’s when you finally start seeing who is actually pulling the strings behind these supposed "movements"...
On this planet... the politics, the power players, the nations, the laws... it’s all just part of the same exhausting daily grind...
The very fabric of the mass we find ourselves submerged in is woven from deliberate illusions, designed specifically to...
Keeping the masses under the illusion that they actually understand the mechanics of reality—knowing what truly matters and what is merely deemed "important"—is all about where you draw the line...
I find myself wondering if there is any actual point to fighting the uphill battles life throws at you... most people just swallow the lies they're fed without a second thought, which I suppose is just the way things have always been...
Up to this point...

I’ve been watching the way people react to these massive shifts in social control lately, and it strikes me how little anyone actually understands about the mechanics of power... We talk about freedom as if it were an inherent right, yet we willingly hand over our privacy to corporations that track our every move, much like those data giants in Silicon Valley, all while pretending we aren't being watched by some digital version of Big Brother... It’s a slow erosion, really, where the boundaries between public life and private thought become increasingly blurred under the guise of convenience and security... People seem content to trade their autonomy for a bit of seamless connectivity, failing to realize that once the infrastructure of total surveillance is fully integrated into the fabric of American life, there won't be any turning back... It’s a quiet, methodical process, one that doesn't require a sudden coup, just a series of small, unnoticed concessions until the New World Order isn't something you read about in a conspiracy theory, but something you live within every single day...

So many people are talking about... The New World Order...What is the true objective of those pulling the strings behind global politics... just wondering...
I don't understand why some people still refuse to see that the New World Order has been in place for ages... the stage is already set, the audience is seated, and...
He’s staring at that opening sequence, completely oblivious to the fact that the people in this movie aren't exactly the A-list Hollywood heavyweights they're waiting for...
It’s always them, along with everyone else on this planet... The New World Order isn't some 3D computer simulation or a virtual reality construct, it's...
It is the reality we face, and we are only a few steps away from when those who refuse to see will finally be forced to confront the truth on a massive scale...
Doors, perhaps through that very same television set they watch with such rapt attention while following the Big Brother show...

Kyle Morris7 said:I find myself compelled to disagree, as I believe this perspective is a profound falsehood; after all, a war only erupts because one side initiates an act of aggression against another, and that specific party must bear the full weight of responsibility for every consequence that follows. Whether those leaders were feuding beforehand is ultimately irrelevant to the facts of the matter, because theoretically speaking, it is impossible for an attack to be launched by both sides at the exact same moment, meaning someone had to strike first, and that individual is the one truly at fault...

True, whether there was existing friction is irrelevant... if the people who actually decide to start
wars find themselves wanting one, they will always find a pretext to ignite it...
The true culpability lies with those architects, not with any of the individual factions fighting on the ground... all sides involved
are nothing more than manipulated masses, completely oblivious to the actual motives behind
the conflict they are bleeding for... it is a level of perfidy that can only be orchestrated by
those who possess both the specialized knowledge and the capital to fund such endeavors...

rustymaker5 said:Well, obviously survival instinct kicks in when things get desperate. But that doesn't mean war is some kind of natural state for humanity... if anything, the sheer existence of PTSD proves my point; I highly doubt people would experience such soul-crushing trauma if being at war was actually our baseline setting...

...

At the end of the day, war is just war. Whether you label it imperialist, a liberation struggle, or whatever else, the reality remains... it never actually benefits the general population, except for a tiny minority who either get rich off war profiteering or climb the ranks of the new power structure.
What kind of actual benefit has any war ever brought to the common person? Take an imperialist war, for example—did the average citizen get richer, or was it just the winning side's establishment lining their pockets? Even in liberation wars, you're usually just swapping one ruling class for another, which rarely helps the people on the ground. Just look at the "liberation" wars across >...
Besides, what did the American Civil War really bring us? Aside from massive grief, loss of life, and destroyed property, it left behind a mountain of physical and mental disabilities, disillusioned veterans struggling with suicide, people who will never see their homes again (if you'll excuse the 🙄cliché), and a handful of vultures who built their careers on the suffering of the nation... all so a few individuals could satisfy their sick obsession with playing a major role in history by stepping over the bodies of their own countrymen...
Man, if I had the power, I'd take those leaders who decide to drag a country into combat and sit them down at a chessboard instead... let them clash through pure intellect and strategy, let the better mind win, and spare the people from having to suffer for it...

👏

rustymaker5 said:Well, obviously survival instinct kicks in when things get desperate. But that doesn't mean war is some kind of natural state for humanity... if anything, the sheer existence of PTSD proves my point; I highly doubt people would experience such soul-crushing trauma if being at war was actually our baseline setting...

...

At the end of the day, war is just war. Whether you label it imperialist, a liberation struggle, or whatever else, the reality remains... it never actually benefits the general population, except for a tiny minority who either get rich off war profiteering or climb the ranks of the new power structure.
What kind of actual benefit has any war ever brought to the common person? Take an imperialist war, for example—did the average citizen get richer, or was it just the winning side's establishment lining their pockets? Even in liberation wars, you're usually just swapping one ruling class for another, which rarely helps the people on the ground. Just look at the "liberation" wars across >...
Besides, what did the American Civil War really bring us? Aside from massive grief, loss of life, and destroyed property, it left behind a mountain of physical and mental disabilities, disillusioned veterans struggling with suicide, people who will never see their homes again (if you'll excuse the 🙄cliché), and a handful of vultures who built their careers on the suffering of the nation... all so a few individuals could satisfy their sick obsession with playing a major role in history by stepping over the bodies of their own countrymen...
Man, if I had the power, I'd take those leaders who decide to drag a country into combat and sit them down at a chessboard instead... let them clash through pure intellect and strategy, let the better mind win, and spare the people from having to suffer for it...

given the "intellect" of the people currently being presented as our leaders, that chess match
would probably drag on for quite some time...

swiftdriver11 said:True, but you can't just ignore the fact that wars, in some twisted way, give nature a breather.
My grandfather used to tell me stories about how, during the first ten years following World War II, he could pull about 150 pounds of fish out of the water with just a small hand net, whereas before World War II, he'd barely get 90 pounds. It was simply because nature finally got a moment to catch its breath and recover.

That logic only holds up for regions that weren't actually turned into battlefields... I live in
a town in the Midwest that saw heavy combat, and even seventeen years after the fighting stopped, the land hasn't really bounced back, let alone the population...
😢

Quincy:

I suppose there isn't much left to say about it... Anthony Rivera17 says: After spending quite a bit of time wading through various interviews and debates surrounding Engdahl, I can’t help but notice how much his perspective aligns with that of Noam Chomsky... It seems to me they share a very similar worldview. I’ve worked my way through two of Chomsky’s books, and while I find myself largely in agreement with his core arguments, he does occasionally lean into certain biases and perhaps lacks a full grasp of the complexities on the ground...The whole situation regarding Mexico seems to be fundamentally misjudged...).

So, now you’re claiming to have a better handle on the "situation" than he does... as if... Engdahl,
Chomsky... He possesses a depth of knowledge and a wealth of information that would likely elude the average person...
It’s a matter of how one chooses to seek out truth... specifically regarding those who stop searching because they find enough to satisfy them through whatever basic instruction they receive at school or via the internet...
The mainstream media... they seem incapable of processing anything beyond the surface level, simply because they lack the fundamental capacity to access—or perhaps even comprehend—information of this depth...
They arrive because they simply have no idea where else to look... both authors, among many others, for us... They’re handing it out...
I perceive a worldview that is fundamentally different from the one most people take for granted... And that is precisely why...
It’s obvious that most people simply aren't capable of processing a reality like this... the same masses who still can't quite grasp the truth...
He accepts the harsh realities surrounding the World Trade Center and the broader implications of the war on terror, much like the complexities of any conflict fought on American soil...

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...

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...
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...
In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Anthony Rivera17 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...
In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...
In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...
Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
The prejudice is that there isn't enough to go around. The problem is really just a matter of redistribution.
No tribe, family, or nation ever truly had everything they needed just to survive. That’s why bartering evolved, and eventually, trade. And everything would have worked out fine if it weren't for those greedy individuals who started hoarding goods and resources with the sole purpose of getting rich—not to survive!—and forcing others into a state of dependency, both economically and socially...

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
It's true that technology advanced rapidly. But I am certain that wars aren't the ones to thank for it. That was just the natural progression resulting from the advancement of human knowledge...
And we could easily flip the argument on its head and assume that technological development might have been even greater if wars hadn't happened in the first place...

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
Albert Einstein was a brilliant man. That little anecdote just illustrated exactly where wars lead...
If the people running this world actually understood that war is just fundamentally pointless, then wars wouldn't be happening constantly, yet here we are... and it doesn't matter if they're just local conflicts, because there’s absolutely no guarantee those won't spiral into some massive, global catastrophe. Once you have these lunatics driven by nothing but pure ego and megalomania deciding to go on conquest sprees to satisfy their own delusions, there isn't much anyone can do to make them stop and think about the consequences... It's like the sheer amount of power they hold gives them this twisted sense of being invincible, like they're somehow above the laws of reality itself...

casualowl1 said:In the long run, war is NEVER beneficial to the people... war is ALWAYS only beneficial to
those pulling the strings behind the scenes, because it is their wealth, and consequently their power, that expands during such times...

Man, you are way off base, my fellow conspiracy theorist! 🙂

Regardless of how you view it in terms of good vs. evil, war brings about massive shifts and growth. Looking at history objectively, any culture forced to fight over limited resources never really thrived. The plain truth is there just wasn't enough to go around. Even for our species, those conflicts ensured the survival of the strongest—which is honestly a win for us as a whole. From an evolutionary standpoint, that was great for those of us inheriting this world today.

Even modern wars, like WWI and WWII, provided massive benefits to society. They acted as accelerators for progress and growth across every single field of human endeavor, from tech to everything else. Just think about the fact that humanity has advanced more in the last 50 years since WWII than in the 500 years before it! Submarines, ships, planes, radar, the moon landing (rockets!), microwaves, computers, medical breakthroughs... the list goes on forever.

Along with all that hardware, our collective consciousness evolved too. We basically leveled up mentally.

There's this cool anecdote that goes something like this: when they asked Albert Einstein what World War III would be fought with, he replied, "I don't know, but World War IV will definitely be fought with sticks." 😁

We’ve reached a stage of development where war is just totally unnecessary, and I truly believe the leaders of all the major global superpowers keep that quote in mind. They realize that one more world war would likely reset our entire species back to the Stone Age.

The Space Age has already kicked off, or is right on the verge of it. The race is moving in that direction now, and I honestly think the Chinese person will lead the way to dominance there.
History suggests I'm on the right track... you just aren't ready to let go of your established biases
and there’s really no point in arguing when you approach things this way; I already know how your mind works
because I used to sit exactly where you are, though I eventually shifted my perspective... so you won't change my mind
about being mistaken... you can hold onto your own views if you want, but to actually see the world through my eyes
you have to absorb new data, which inevitably forces you to reconsider the very foundations of what
you think you "know"... one has to look at both sides of the coin to understand its true value, rather than just staring at one face... it's easy enough to throw around terms like
"conspiracy," but doing so only proves you haven't bothered to see what's on the other side of the ledger
and that you simply don't care to find out, settling instead for a single narrative, which is ultimately a disservice to yourself...

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

Anthony Rivera17 said:History suggests I'm on the right track... you just aren't ready to let go of your established biases
and there’s really no point in arguing when you approach things this way; I already know how your mind works
because I used to sit exactly where you are, though I eventually shifted my perspective... so you won't change my mind
about being mistaken... you can hold onto your own views if you want, but to actually see the world through my eyes
you have to absorb new data, which inevitably forces you to reconsider the very foundations of what
you think you "know"... one has to look at both sides of the coin to understand its true value, rather than just staring at one face... it's easy enough to throw around terms like
"conspiracy," but doing so only proves you haven't bothered to see what's on the other side of the ledger
and that you simply don't care to find out, settling instead for a single narrative, which is ultimately a disservice to yourself...

Nah, you've got it wrong. I'm well aware of both sides. Tell me something I haven't heard or known before, and then maybe I'll change my mind about certain things. We just have different opinions—plain and simple. That's totally fine by me. It doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other. It's just different.

casualowl1 said:

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention this yet! It feels like such a huge topic that everyone is just glossing over. Seriously, we need to dive into this right now! kaže:
People always act like there isn't enough to go around, but honestly? That’s just a total myth. It’s not a scarcity problem—it’s just a massive redistribution problem.
No tribe, no family, no nation has ever had... Everything! Think about what people actually need just to stay alive. That’s exactly why bartering started in the first place, which eventually evolved into actual trade. Everything would have been smooth sailing if we didn't have those greedy individuals popping up out of nowhere—the ones who start hoarding goods and supplies just to line their own pockets! They aren't trying to survive; they're just looking to get rich by forcing everyone else into...

Look, we’ve got plenty today, but there was a time when things were tight. Imagine a fertile patch of land that could easily feed 100 people, but instead, you've got 150 mouths to feed. Now throw in two different tribes facing that same problem, and suddenly, war isn't just possible—it's inevitable. That kind of struggle is exactly where conflict comes from. It’s not about some grand scheme to get rich; it’s pure survival. One group had the grain, the other had the cattle, but everyone wanted both the bread and the meat. That’s the root of it all. That's where the friction starts.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I am totally stoked about how things are shaping up! Honestly, everything feels like it's finally clicking into place. It’s such a vibe right now! 🙌✨ kaže:
Look, there's no denying that technology has absolutely skyrocketed lately. But let's be real—wars didn't drive that progress. That wasn't the catalyst. It’s just been the natural evolution of things, fueled by the steady climb of human knowledge!
Honestly, we could totally flip the script on this one and assume that technological progress would have been even more insane if we hadn't been constantly dealing with wars!

I gotta disagree with you there. Honestly, war was the real engine behind all that. Without it, progress would’ve been way slower—that's just an undeniable fact.
Honestly, making assumptions is just asking for trouble! It’s basically the mother of all screw-ups.

I can't believe we're actually talking about this! It’s such an interesting topic to dive into. What do you guys think? kaže:
Einstein was one hell of a genius. That little anecdote really just drives home the point of where wars actually lead us.
If world leaders actually realized how completely unnecessary war is, we wouldn't be seeing it happen constantly. It doesn't even matter if the conflicts are just local disputes; there’s absolutely no guarantee they won't spiral into a massive global catastrophe. Honestly, once these power-hungry lunatics start chasing their own megalomaniacal agendas, you can't exactly stop them with "rational thinking" about the consequences. It's like that power they hold gives them this delusional sense of being invincible and immortal...

The absolute best way to guarantee things don't go totally south is that famous "balance of power" we always hear about!
The US can basically do whatever they want in the Middle East. As long as they don't start poking the bear or messing with China's or Russia's spheres of influence, they've got plenty of room to move.

When you look at a local conflict—like this whole oil war we’re seeing today—it’s pretty obvious that only a handful of people actually strike it rich while everyone else just deals with the fallout. In this day and age, the entire world ends up paying the price just because of fluctuating oil prices, yet Americans are still out here cruising around in prehistoric gas guzzlers that burn through fuel like crazy! 62 miles And they’re basically doing it for free!

To you, that looks like progress, but to me, it just feels like we're inching closer to hell... you seem far too enamored with this idea of
"advancement," so naturally, we aren't going to see eye to eye on anything, least of all when it comes to war...