War. HU! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing.

Well thank you for that compliment. I must agree with Logical-Master, and I too would have been quite amused if you had found a rebuttal song. But back on subject. On Necessity: While I cannot refute that wars have served a purpose, I have to disagree that that makes them necessary. What happened to politics? Is it always necessary to result to fisticuffs when you don't get your way? Is there no way that talking it through could not have solved anything? You might say no but I say yes. What you will say is that nothing would have been accomplished. The French would still be poverty. Scots would never have had freedom. Zulus would have lost their land. That is, of course, assuming both sides had engaged in combat. Hindsight shows us the mistakes of the past. The aristocracy of France should just have let the lower class into their political system. The British shouldn't have invaded Scotland or Zulu territory. We can see it now, why couldn't they? Did it really take all those lives, all the wounds, all the nightmares to figure that out? The truth is they could have without war, but were blinded by the manipulations of their past. The common law was if you needed something take it, by any means necessary. Everybody viewed everybody as an enemy, as something less than themselves, as different. But really, are we different at all? Did the Zulu's not have 5 fingers on their hands like the British? Didn't the British have two legs like the Zulu's? Didn't both sides of the French have kidneys, Livers, Lower Intestine, Bladders, Femurs, Molars, Eyebrows, Rib cages, etc? Was there no possible way that neither side could see that? Why neither could treat the other as friend rather than foe? All the examples you have stated so far are all situations were reason and understanding could have just as well have prevailed over the gun, spear, and guillotine. Its wasn't self defence, it was close minded fear. People wanted results fast, not results right. Either way it could have reached the same outcome. So again, what was the use of war? "Because it means destruction of innocent lives" You claim that people have to fight to better there lives. Well, as I just pointed out, all it would take is reason and even the strife could have been avoided. The poor conditions of the people were caused by ignorance, and selfishness of those in power. With enough political involvement, these tyrants could have been userbed without deadly force. With a bit of consciousness, peoples lives could be better. Again, human stupidity stalls that. So another case were it could have been avoided, but rather than efficiency, people wanted speed and money. So these lives were still lost needlessly. "War means tears to thousands of mothers eyes when their sons go to fight and lose their lives" Can there really be any good fight? Its not just one mother, its thousands, even millions, and not just those on the "good" side but on the other as well (a good exemplification of this is the film 'All Quiet on the Western Front') To both sides, their 'good' fight is the bad one for the opposition. Many don't even know why they are fighting, they just are. Especially when a draft comes into effect, and people who would rather not fight, die for a cause they didn't support or did not want to get involved in. Do you still think 'the good fight' would matter to those mothers? "War, it ain't nothing but a heart breaker" War is still a heart breaker, even to the oppressed. No sane person smiles when they hear of a loved ones death on the battlefield, even if it was for a cause. A cause which could be solved with diplomacy. "War, friend only to the undertaker" Couldn't those corrupt coalitionists be seen as undertakers? Profiting off the dead? I believe War meant 'undertaker' as general statement. But there is no doubt that war must be a happy time for funeral businesses. "It's an enemy to all mankind" Incorrect. All mankind view war as an enemy. What people like is the 'reasons' behind the wars. War is an enemy to the human race. It's purposeful self destruction of our species, aka, murder. We are legally endorsing the job that we condemn people like Charles Mason and Timothy McVeigh for doing. A B52 pilot can easily beat the damage done in the Oklahoma City Bombing. A Marine can kill ten times more than Charles Mason. Why is it that no one else seems to see that war=murder. That is War is saying. We are killing ourselves. Reasons be damned. Any issue can be resolved with words, yet we still resort to death. Without the reasoning its still murder. And because the reasoning can be resolved some other way. So we are killing ourselves needlessly! War is an enemy to everyone, no matter what story you tell yourself to sleep at night. "The point of war blows my mind" Give me a good reason to start a war. This means that reason could not, in any way, be resolved peacefully. There would have to be a good, legitimate reason that would progress mankind. There cannot be any ill will, or vengeful motivation behind it. All of these are in direct conflict with what war really is. But if you can find me 1 'good' war I will concede this point. I would suggest trying to find a few, as I'm sure I will be able to knock them down easily. "War has caused unrest within the younger generation" War messes everybody up. The father of a son dies. The sun wells up hatred. That son becomes a world leader, and declares war. That war kills another dad, with another son, and the cycle continues. War only fuels distrust, hatred, and revenge. It hinders progress because it scars people, physically, mentally and emotionally. The only reason its still alive is because we keep it alive, and say it's right. Patriotism is just a nice sound way of saying "I will kill anyone for this dirt". Allegiance and loyalty are just the politically correct term of saying "I don't trust my fellow man". War is bad, and always will be. "Induction then destruction" Destruction is always bad. It means death. Many people view death as being a bad thing. Again, diplomacy can spare us all the trouble. "Who wants to die?" An escape for a temporary situation. Nothing that can't be solved with reason. In fact, many survivors of suicide come to that same realization. Life is precious, why stop it prematurely? I'm sure if we could talk to those dead in wars they would say the exact same thing. Beside, wouldn't they prefer to see the effects of their sacrifice? "Ooooh, war, has shattered many a young mans dreams, made him disabled, bitter and mean" So you concede to this point for the most part. Every surviving soldier I have met from a war is haunted with bad dreams and memories. Those with disabilities are loathsome of the cause. They lost their hand because two leaders could not shake theirs. Truly a waste. "Life is much to short and precious to spend fighting wars these days" Again, without the distrust, with a little brains rather than brawn, with compassion, we would never have had to fight the wars of the past. If we do fight any in the future (undoubtedly we will) it will only be because we still haven't realized this fact. "War can't give life it can only take it away" The opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation. Wars destroy, people create. You've only viewed the outcomes of the wars, but those all could have been reached with diplomacy. The acts and treaties came after all the death. Why not skip a step? "Peace, love and understanding tell me, is there no place for them today?" But war is still evil, yes? What would be so wrong about getting people to understand each other? It would take time, perhaps some harsh words here and there, but any positive result that doesn't require a gun is worth looking into. "They say we must fight to keep our freedom but Lord knows there's got to be a better way" Diplomacy. Education. Reason. Understanding. LOVE. Just a thought. 22 Characters left.