Christov Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 My Girlfriend asked me a few days ago, "What is the purpose of War?" I thought I should ask the men at arms on this forum. So what is the Purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Umm, to beat the hell out of each other. It's an instict of man. Like Patton once said, "As long as there is man, there will be war." It's the same as when we were hairy monkey-like creatures in small tribes, fighting over a a good hunting area by beating each other over the head with animal bones and pointy rocks. Except today we are in the billions, weild thermo-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and fight over useless pices of land or resources. If you ask any sensible person though, we're still monkeys. ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 I say 25 posts before this is locked up. Any bets? ------------------ Ow, my leg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Brizee Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 It's not possible for there to be no war. If there was world peace, I would start something because no one would expect it! Hoohoohahahah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 someone on this board here quoted "the purpose of war is trying for a more perfect peace" or something like that. there is no real sense in war. it happens. and it has it's own momentum once it has started, so even if it had some aim at the beginning that may change and it's repercussions will affect the lives of people long after it's over. war is an absolute. it is terrible. btw: I don't think thisone'll get locked up. ------------------ CPT STRANSKY: "Please fix!!! or do somefink" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Mao Tse Tung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 isn't there somthing that says war is the result of failed diplomacy? So the purpose of war is to fix or enforce your get your diplomatic "way" with the use of force. There's more to its than that I think? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 Violence,naked force has settled more arguments in history then any other means. War is maximum violence and is the extension of political force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 War is the final act of diplomacy. If a group of people are doing something reprehensible, you try to talk it out. You try to limit their access to dangerous tools. If all else fails, and they don't listen or change, then you destroy their infrastructure and their ability to do whatever it is they were doing that was reprehensible, emasculate their leaders and impose a new system that limits their ability to commit this reprehensible act in the future. That or, in the words of Conan, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women." ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: War is the final act of diplomacy. If a group of people are doing something reprehensible, you try to talk it out. You try to limit their access to dangerous tools. If all else fails, and they don't listen or change, then you destroy their infrastructure and their ability to do whatever it is they were doing that was reprehensible, emasculate their leaders and impose a new system that limits their ability to commit this reprehensible act in the future. That or, in the words of Conan, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of the women." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I figured I would find Elijah here. I'm not a collectivist....really. ------------------ The counter-revolution, people smilling through their tears. Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strat Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 The reasons for war are numerous. Some reasons for an aggressor: 1. Economic and resource deficiencies - I don't have enough, I want what you have. 2. Territorial disputes - Thats my land, get off. 3. Religious differences - My religion is better than yours so you will worship the way I do. 4. Political differences - My way of living is better than yours so you will live my way. Strat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 All right Def, now that I've been called out, I'll really let loose. Strat, I don't think Christov's girlfriend much cares about any such reasons for war. I think the issue is, really, how can a people who believe that murder is a crime, as any society must, band together for the mass murder of the men of another society? What drives such a thing is greater than lebensraum and political expediency, and goes behind the myth of socialized hatred. People don't go to war for simple, black and white reasons, they go to war because convoluted plans, misunderstood philosophies and machismo force them to. America went to war in WWII because the Chinese pushed us into it -An aside for old Seanie- Though we vied politically with Japan for the Chinese market, exports to Japan were FAR more valuable than those to China. The Chinese Lobby pressed Roosevelt (Franklin but especially his wife) to side with China in the upcoming conflict. Lady Chiang Kai-Shek was a popular speaker in the late 30s and convinced many American politicians that Japan was the enemy, even though a continued peaceful relationship with Japan was far more desirable than anything China could offer. Our civil war started because both sides were so damn tense that action was like an involuntary reflex. Germany was at war with the UK despite every desire on the part of Hitler that they stay at peace and all logic saying that Britain had nothing to gain from another continental war. There are more, the American Revolution due to agitation, Vietnam because we painted ourselves into an ideological corner, Korea because of a social hiccup, WWI because, well, because of more reasons than I'll ever know. Look to China's Warring States period, there you will learn everything you ever wanted to know about the reasons for war and the best ways to start one. Sun Tzu predicted the outcome of the Cold War saying that war was impossible between two rational states that knew the cost of it. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).] [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 War is much more basic. It is instinctive. Pure Darwinian theory here. Killing each other is just a part of the grand plan for species on this planet. Pretty much everything, from single cell lifeforms to humans, fight in some way shape or form to better themselves over others. Generally this is only intraspecies (i.e. against members of same species), but there certainly are examples of different species trying to anhilate each other for local control of resources (ants vs. termites for example). In short... war is as natural as procreating. We can curb individual acts of either, but as a whole we must do both to survive. As someone who received a degree in history, it is clear that War is probably the single catalyst for "progress" of our species. Without it we would still be swining from trees in the jungle (and still fighting BTW). Anybody that thinks we can just wash away tens of thousands of years of human nature, and the general nature of species on this planet, is simply naive. It will never happen. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 That's not war. War is the systematic, social mobilization to defeat another society. What you describe is conflict, a byproduct of evolution and the necessary result of the interaction between any two forces. Though the two may be superficially similar, conflict in evolution is the ends, conflict in war is the means. Conflict has and always will exist, war is a recent creation, like language, society and tool use. Granted, though it may be based on our primative experiences with conflict, war is as far removed from it as we are from the apes, or hamsters for that matter. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: America went to war in WWII because the Chinese pushed us into it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quick, Meeks, edit or dive under a table! ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 "As long as there is man, there will be war." there might not even be peace if there were just one man, because often men are at war with themselves. i believe that war is to men as childbirth is to women. the men who say, 'i could never kill anyone' are really just afraid to admit that they're afraid of being hurt themselves. that thing patton said about all of the cowards being killed off. i'm not so sure that many of the best soldiers survive. the best machinegunner for instance would always draw the most fire. the ones cowering might survive while the fighters (heroes) are killing each other... 'billy don't be a hero, come back and make me your wife, and as he started to goooo, she said billy keep your head looowww-oh-oh billy don't be a hero, come back to me' =g= some of the best definitely survive though. maybe it (war) is for weeding out cowards like patton said. i still think that some of the crazy ones... some of the good soldiers who charge machinegun nests.... definitely die, and they would have 'seeded hardy stock' had they lived. but yes i have to think that every man thinks about combat or warfare at least once. men say how horrible it is at the time and then when they're old they sit around and talk about it in pubs, some with their old uniforms on or at least their medals on their chest, talking about 'the war,' whichever war it was. i believe that - as in starship troopers - only combat veterans should be citizens. 'everybody fights, nobody quits.' andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quick, Meeks, edit or dive under a table!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think he meant what he typed. So let's see.... China drove us into WWII... Damn... wish I knew that one... So if Japan had not attacked us, we would have attacked them? China may positioned themselves into a favorable position with the US, but Japan brought us into the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 To think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a sudden event, isolated in history, is, well, stupid. Japan invaded southern China for resources, steel and rubber mainly. They did this because we cut off our export of such resources to them. Their attack was bogged down, as any major land war in Asia is destined to be, and so they looked elsewhere, Indonesia, India, Australia, the Phillipines. To attack these meant to go to war with the U.S. This is why they bombed us at Pearl Harbor. For Japan to not go to war with us would have meant pulling out of China, which was impossible given the social mindset of Imperial Japan in the late 30s. We pushed them into war, the argument is whether it was justified or not. Everyone is so well versed on the Western part of World War II but the war in the east was going since 1932 and had a web of convoluted politics all its own. The short of it being, yes, I did mean what I said. Support from Lords of the Rim by Sterling Seagrave, pgs 163-165 "Despite stunning military victories, success eluded Japan. The drive into China bogged down... Financing such an open-ended war was an unbearable burden that the militarists in Japan had not forseen. By the end of 1937, over seven hundred thousand Japanese troops were stuck in China, at the cost of 5 million dollars a day, and mounting. National debt skyrocketed. After 1938, rationing and other emergency measures had to be introduced to keep Japan on a war footing... As the stalemate dragged on, reserves of foreign currency and raw materials evaporated. Tokyo was dangerously dependent on imports from Western-controlled markets, including Oil from the Dutch East Indies. A strike south would enable Japan to guarantee supplies of oil, rubber, tin, bauxite and foodstuffs... Thanks to intense lobbying in Washington by Madame Chiang Kai-shek and her brother, China's Foreign Minister T.V. Soong, and with help behind the scenes from well-connected Americans, President Roosevelt found ways to get around Congress and actively to aid Chungking... US trade with Nationalis China was minimal, while US trade with Japan was increasingly steady. Even so, in 1939, the Soongs and the China lobby persuaded Roosevelt to have the Secretary of State Cordell Hull denounce the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. US embargos of Japanese goods went into effect. The stalemate in China put Japan in a position where she had to either abandon the China campaign at great loss of face or go on to sieze all South Easy Asia, to obtain its oil and raw materials." ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a sudden event, isolated in history, is, well, stupid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah... but where do you draw the line? Even what you described goes back further. With historical events like this it is best not to go back too far or you get into a situation like in Bosnia where the various sides traced back their reasons for killing each other hundreds of years. Now THAT is stupid. I also wish to say that war, as you described it, is not limited to humans. Tribe/colony based societies do wage war. Humans might have more baggage cluttering their reasons, but it still boils down to the same thing -> having more for one's own tribe/colony. Check out a nature show or two on cable and you will see what I mean. Ants mobilize to fight rival colonies and, in some cases, intruding species. War is nothing but collective conflict. Herd mentality murder if you like. Splitting hairs about the circumstances leading to each doesn't constitute a true difference. If individuals weren't driven to conflict there could be no larger conflict known as war. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To think that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was a sudden event, isolated in history, is, well, stupid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah... but where do you draw the line? Even what you described goes back further. With historical events like this it is best not to go back too far or you get into a situation like in Bosnia where the various sides traced back their reasons for killing each other hundreds of years. Now THAT is stupid. Please reread my post, as I've added some supporting work. I consider events two years before the outbreak of war to not be going "back too far." As to the ant colony metaphor, an ant colony more resembles an individual creature than a group of individuals. As to splitting hairs, that's what science is about. Conflict is inherent in man, along with everything else. Strategy and tactics, however, is a higher form of activity, along the lines, as I said, of language. CM proves that there is a difference between two mobs beating on each other and a well thought out assault on a fortified position. ------------------ You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins. -Hakko Ichiu [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 So, Mr. History teacher, let's see if I'm following your lesson plan correctly... I don't want to seem stupid, after all... "posted 08-31-2000 12:54 AM" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>America went to war in WWII because the Chinese pushed us into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "posted 08-31-2000 01:39 AM" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Japan to not go to war with us would have meant pulling out of China, which was impossible given the social mindset of Imperial Japan in the late 30s. We pushed them into war, the argument is whether it was justified or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... ahhh well... I must be stupid, because to me it looks like in the span of 45 minutes, it went from China pushing the US into the war, to the US pushing Japan into the war. Care to tell us at what point Japan takes responsibility, in your mind, for continuing down the path that lead to war? [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM proves that there is a difference between two mobs beating on each other and a well thought out assault on a fortified position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is there? I don't agree. It proves that different species are better adapted to different things. Yes, war (as we conceive of it) involves more "thinking" than other forms of conflict, but I would say that each species employs its maximum intellectual capacity to wage war. Ants are limited, humans are much less so. But if you gave ants higher intelligence I bet you all that it would do is allow them to wage war more creatively. My point is that war is simply a "higher" form of inherent, biological urge to be dominant. It is not a seperate thing. In other words, we are just using the tools we have to better ourselves over others more effectively. The smarter we get the more we apply it to gain for us those things that our tree swinging ancestors were after too. War has been around long before humans were capable of logging their own history. That is a LONG time... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 "War is much more basic. It is instinctive. Pure Darwinian theory here. Killing each other is just a part of the grand plan for species on this planet." Xactly what I said. Here's ANOTHER interesting fact to consider for all of those people who think us humans would have been better off without war. In the animal world, large groups are never allowed to grow beyond what the land can contain. This is done with predetors monitoring and killing off the herbivores. If there were no predetors, the herbivores would not only ruin the habitat, but would also suffer from numerous diseases because the sick animals were not killed off by the predetors. Now, we humans are at the top of the food chain and have been there for thousands of years. Now imagine we never had a war, that humans were all just happy go-lucky types who never picked a fight (yeah, it's impossible I know, just making a point). If we did not kill off the millions or maybe even BILLIONS who have died in every war, every battle, every clash or fight we humans have ever waged over our long and sometimes unrecorded history, those billions would have reproduced and bred more humans. Now, we are hitting the 8 billion mark right now, and predicted to go as high as 20+billion by the year 2020. Now if all those people who were killed off had a chance to reproduce, they would have had numerous offspring. Multiply several billion by the number of children families had in the olden ages (usually large). Can you see where I'm going with this? We would already be extinct from overpopulation. We would die from deseases and wouldn't have any place on our poor little world way before we even GOT to WW2! We are our own eco-system. We are our own predetor and prey. If it doesn't stay that way, we better find a way to get off this rock quick or else its a pretty terrible looking future. ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: War has been around long before humans were capable of logging their own history. That is a LONG time... Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it's been argued (convincingly, I think)there are two very different types of war that have been around during the time man has been on earth. One is more like an extreme sport, dangerous but not too dangerous, that is still practiced by some of the more remote tribes - more about self-expression than annihilation. The other type is the war/battle of mass slaughter that arrived along with civilisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted August 31, 2000 Share Posted August 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Christov: My Girlfriend asked me a few days ago, "What is the purpose of War?" I thought I should ask the men at arms on this forum. So what is the Purpose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to Yossarian in Catch-22, it pays well and frees young men from the pernicious influence of their parents...or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts