Scratch

warioandbob · 2010-01-26 17:18:03

Hey, I had this discussion in school today, and it was really fun, so I thought I'd post a topic about it!

Basically, it's just a discussion if wars are necessary. Throughout history, there have always been wars, from the Civil war, to the war in Afghanistan, to ancient tribes fighting over land. It's fairly obvious that humans have grown accustomed to war. But do we still need them? That's what were he to discuss!

A few rules first
1) Nobody's idea is "stupid". If you don't agree with it, post reason why you don't think they are right. Opinions are just that, opinions!

2) No yelling: Seems pretty obvious, but posting something that says "SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!" doesn't make you seem particularly intelligent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I'll start:

For me I feel that military will always have a presence in this world. The only way wars can stop is if everyone decides not to have them, which will never happen. Unless maybe we all get brainwashed by peace-loving aliens. However, I feel that there are far more civilized ways to solve problems now. Treaties are one idea, but what about something more radical? What if we virtually had war? As in, played a video game, and not actually killing people. I'd sounds ridiculous, but with VG growing in complexity and graphics power, this could be a compromise: still fight, but now no one has to die! Although this probably will never happen, it's nice to think about big_smile

Kileymeister · 2010-01-26 17:21:14

War is necessary. It is a part of human life. Without war, there is no establishment of power, which leads to global anar'chy. Simple.

Last edited by Kileymeister (2010-01-26 17:22:41)

Jonathanpb · 2010-01-26 17:21:38

Wars aren't neccessary if you have an alternative way of settling the problem, I suppose.

Last edited by Jonathanpb (2010-01-26 17:22:28)

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 17:35:44

War is necessary.

warioandbob · 2010-01-26 17:52:25

Kileymeister wrote:
War is necessary. It is a part of human life. Without war, there is no establishment of power, which leads to global anar'chy. Simple.

No establishment of power? One question, did the president get elected because of a war? Of course not, therefore we can have a system of goverment without war. The US has only used war once within it's own country, and that was over a hundred years ago. Technology, and humanity has advanced so that we don't need war to govern ourselfs.

Did I change your mind?

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 17:59:53

No, there's more to the world than the U.S., but I like your thinking (about US being the only country in the world, not the war stuff)

Kileymeister · 2010-01-26 18:01:49

warioandbob wrote:
Kileymeister wrote:
War is necessary. It is a part of human life. Without war, there is no establishment of power, which leads to global anar'chy. Simple.
No establishment of power? One question, did the president get elected because of a war? Of course not, therefore we can have a system of goverment without war. The US has only used war once within it's own country, and that was over a hundred years ago. Technology, and humanity has advanced so that we don't need war to govern ourselfs.

Did I change your mind?

I meant establishment of power between countries.

littletonkslover · 2010-01-26 18:03:22

War is not necessary, there are other ways of settling disputes. Bringing your countries citizens to death does not make you look strong. Unless the "opposing team" attacked you, I guess it's fine then.

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 18:05:02

I'd like to bring up hitler, while we're on the subject of wars. The Treaty of Versailles is what caused WW2

illusionist · 2010-01-26 18:17:56

War is a waste of time, money, and life.

The only reason wars start is because of disagreement and misunderstanding.

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 18:52:10

There's an enormous wall between Disagreement and Misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding:
Korea: 'We want to destroy your land'
U.S: 'WHAT? That's it! It's go time!'
**After the war**
U.S: 'Ohhhh you meant [I'm not a future predictor so there's no telling what could go here]'

Disagreement:
Germany: 'This land is mine'
Poland: 'I think not! Have at ye!"
**After the sword fight**
No wait, this isn't right. Poland was created after the war. Whatever country fought with Germany in WW2: 'And that's how Poland was made!'

Last edited by Ace-of-Spades (2010-01-26 18:52:42)

hmnwilson · 2010-01-26 19:00:29

Not particularily, there's more ways to resolve disputes than soldiers killing each other and endangering the lives of innocent people, but humans will never stop fighting, no matter how hard you try.

Lucario621 · 2010-01-26 19:07:08

I wouldn't say wars are necessary, but impossible with the human race's imperfectness to keep people from fighting and having war. Its just not doable.

warioandbob · 2010-01-26 19:11:36

Ace-of-Spades wrote:
There's an enormous wall between Disagreement and Misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding:
Korea: 'We want to destroy your land'
U.S: 'WHAT? That's it! It's go time!'
**After the war**
U.S: 'Ohhhh you meant [I'm not a future predictor so there's no telling what could go here]'

Disagreement:
Germany: 'This land is mine'
Poland: 'I think not! Have at ye!"
**After the sword fight**
No wait, this isn't right. Poland was created after the war. Whatever country fought with Germany in WW2: 'And that's how Poland was made!'

Right. So both disagreement and misunderstanding, or either of them can cause war, and violence. So with more communication, and a better understanding of different countries culture, we can help prevent misunderstanding.

Disagreement will always happen, but it can be resolved peacefully.

fg123 · 2010-01-26 19:18:58

I think wars are just stupid. Humans are the only mammal that kills it's own kind without being sad. (When it comes to humans, we are all stupid.)

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 19:23:26

It can't! There's also the need to show how strong you are so you don't get yourself invaded.

An example of that:
Random Country (no examples this time): 'Hmmm Other Country has been gaining popularity lately. I'll invade it to show how strong I am.'
**After the prison tussle**
Other Country: 'Random Country is too strong to beat. This will show we're weak and we'll get invaded again! I'll invade Third Country to not look weak."
**More prison tussles**
Third Country: 'Hmmm... I think I'll continue the cycle until there's only one really weak country left that everyone can invade'

Wait.... might this be Africa?

Last edited by Ace-of-Spades (2010-01-26 19:24:50)

adriangl · 2010-01-26 19:30:28

Wars and fighting have been the favorite way to settle arguments since the beginning of time. I don't like them, but they are society. Without wars and fighting, yes it would be peaceful and there would be less deaths, but there would be madness. Arguments would be settled over talking, and that would lead to more arguments. Without wars and fighting, you probably wouldn't be where you are. America would stay with the Indians, with at the most just a few 100 English descendants living in America.

Kileymeister · 2010-01-26 19:33:02

No war= No Call of Duty, Halo, or any game where you so much as step on a bug.

Therefor, no war = no good video games = the downfall of Scratch! yikes We can't all make games about picking roses!

Last edited by Kileymeister (2010-01-26 19:33:34)

fg123 · 2010-01-26 19:36:28

We could. I'll make one right now!

Ace-of-Spades · 2010-01-26 19:36:30

No, if there was no war, of course there would be an exponential rise in those types of games. (WAR GAMES, NOT ROSE PICKING PANSY GAMES)

Last edited by Ace-of-Spades (2010-01-26 19:37:28)

MyRedNeptune · 2010-01-26 23:03:06

Killage wars are getting less and less popular. >.> It's mostly informational wars and all that stuff.

I'm not sure whether it is possible to not have wars. I've never really studied that stuff. Besides, even if it is possible, it isn't gonna happen anytime soon.

So just relax and wait for technological singularity to happen. ^-^

MyRedNeptune · 2010-01-26 23:08:12

littletonkslover wrote:
War is not necessary, there are other ways of settling disputes. Bringing your countries citizens to death does not make you look strong. Unless the "opposing team" attacked you, I guess it's fine then.

Well, you see, there wasn't ever a war that didn't happen because "the opposing team attacked you". At least, these days it's like that. tongue

cocoanut · 2010-01-26 23:49:46

America: "Hey, Iraq, give us your oil!"
Iraq: "Uh, no thanks."
America: "You baloney-headed fools! Be gone with you!"

*war ensues*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of games about picking flowers, ever heard of Flower?

That was good.

Mayhem · 2010-01-27 00:51:37

warioandbob wrote:
Kileymeister wrote:
War is necessary. It is a part of human life. Without war, there is no establishment of power, which leads to global anar'chy. Simple.
No establishment of power? One question, did the president get elected because of a war?

Yes. Specifically, because of the War of Independence. Without that, there would be no president.

PlayWithFire · 2010-01-27 01:04:05

i think that many wars aren't necessary but lots of them are. think about the american revolution, that couldn't be solved peacefully and they had to fight for their rights, the US wouldn't exist today without that. so lots of wars are needed.

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2010-01-26 17:18:03

Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#2 2010-01-26 17:21:14

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#3 2010-01-26 17:21:38

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#4 2010-01-26 17:35:44

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#5 2010-01-26 17:52:25

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

Kileymeister wrote:

#6 2010-01-26 17:59:53

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#7 2010-01-26 18:01:49

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

warioandbob wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

#8 2010-01-26 18:03:22

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#9 2010-01-26 18:05:02

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#10 2010-01-26 18:17:56

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#11 2010-01-26 18:52:10

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#12 2010-01-26 19:00:29

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#13 2010-01-26 19:07:08

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#14 2010-01-26 19:11:36

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

Ace-of-Spades wrote:

#15 2010-01-26 19:18:58

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#16 2010-01-26 19:23:26

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#17 2010-01-26 19:30:28

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#18 2010-01-26 19:33:02

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#19 2010-01-26 19:36:28

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#20 2010-01-26 19:36:30

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#21 2010-01-26 23:03:06

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#22 2010-01-26 23:08:12

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

littletonkslover wrote:

#23 2010-01-26 23:49:46

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

#24 2010-01-27 00:51:37

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

warioandbob wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

#25 2010-01-27 01:04:05

Re: Discussion: Are wars necessary?

Board footer