Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1621722)

There's another point that hasn't been adequately discussed here. It's something Orwell was particularly interested in when he put forward the theory that "the purpose of war is not to win but to perpetuate the conflict". You can see how this has worked even recently, with both Thatcher and Bush Jr getting the public on their side when they went to war, and how it increased their popularity. Often, the "God is on our side" idea works to a leader's advantage in waging what could even be an unjust and unjustified war. Look at the Crusades: what right had the Pope to go trying to take the Holy Land back from the Moors, yet he and his bishops convinced all the kings of Europe that Jerusalem had been seized, when in fact all the Muslims were doing was taking it back from we Christians, who had usurped it in the first place.

War exists as a tool, a reason to justify often barbarous treatment ("This is war!") and make landgrabs that otherwise would not be possible in peacetime. It's an excuse to suspend the usual conventions of human relationships and treat those we were only recently friends with as our deadliest enemies.

And because it gives us that power (and **** what anyone says, we like it) then it's always a possibility in the back of the minds of world leaders. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the likes of England and France were always going to war. Why? Were there grievances? Sure, but they were historical. Nothing new had happened to justify going to war. The simple truth of the matter is that war was "good for business". A king or queen who went to war always had popular support and looked "strong", and there never needed to be any real justification for that. In the "House of Cards" trilogy by Micheal Dobbs, as his power begins to slip and his popularity wanes, the Prime Minister arranges "a small war", and everyone's attention is diverted from the problems at hand.

So it's also a useful instrument for the unscrupulous. Humans are by nature competitive (what? Yes we are! Bet you anything! Okay then, first to the end of the street and back...) and forever trying to one-up each other, and countries vie one against the other for the upper hand. If America was not the power it is today you can be sure it would be struggling to attain that superiority, and Iran is certainly attempting to gain power over the Middle East with its nuclear program, intending on wiping out its great enemy Israel, who are in turn trying to reduce Gaza to dust, month on and month off, all in the name of "national security".

There's no doubt Man is genetically tuned towards the need for war, if only to keep him sharp and alert, and stop him from becoming complacent. You can bet that at this point, at some meeting in some city in some country, someone is plotting a coup, a terrorist attack, even laying plans for a war.

It's just how we are. I'd love it if we could change it, but I think we can no more subdue our desire for conflict and challenge than we can stop the sun rising in the morning.

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie (Post 1621848)

One only need look inside their heart to realise the answer is no.

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1621858)

It's not humanity.

It's the ****ing idiots that are put into positions of power by the stupidity of the masses.

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1621864)

well, i do think you have a point in that resources and territory are scarce. since they are scarce, competing tribes/states/companies/whatever are sort of destined to compete for them.

but i notice a trend in warfare where as our weapons technology becomes increasingly efficient and destructive, more and more restraint is being shown in using them. that's not to say that war is going away, at least not any time soon. but if you look at humanity's history, when wars were fought we had a tendency to wage total war on entire populations, slaughtering as many as we could and in many cases trying our best to wipe out the enemy entirely. it seemed like this sort of climaxed in the early 20th century, with europe and parts of asia and africa being completely decimated by all out warfare using increasingly deadly technology. the 2nd world war ultimately ended with germany being sacked and then eventually the united states nuking japan twice, the first and only time nukes have ever been used by any nation.

the following half a century was dominated by 2 major global powers (usa vs ussr) that had every incentive, reason and inclination to go to war. however, they ultimately didn't. they engaged in proxy wars and **** like that. but they never had an all out war. and i honestly think nukes are the main reason why.

similarly, i don't think the iranian regime has the genuine intention of using nukes to wipe israel off the map. i think they use that sort of rhetoric in their domestic politics, because like it or not, israel is severely hated by most muslims worldwide, and there is also quite a bit of antisemitism within the islamic community. so it's popular to attack them. but ultimately, what is in iran's best interest as a geopolitical force is to get nukes as a bargaining chip. it's just a simple fact that nukes give you increased geopolitical leverage. and yet typically, so far, they never seem to actually get used.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1621915)

Hippy nonsense. Back that up with some facts.

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie (Post 1621964)

:nono:

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie (Post 1622022)

It's education, conditioning, culture, judgmements, ideas, our own ego, that lead to conflict. And all that stuff can be likened to software running on a computer (which in this case is the human brain). We're hardwired (built) to be alive, to feel and sense, to be aware.