Talk:Eternal war

message: I liked your new version better.  I've made some changes to it this morning as well and I still have some thoughts:
* I removed this reference: http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/publications/editorials/12dec03.html.  It does mention 1984, and mentions how the ancient Greeks used to do it, but I didn't really follow it when it started talking about modern times (which is more what this article is about) — it didn't seem to really claim that modern governments are tricking the people back into wars, just that we always seem to be getting back into them.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but the professor who wrote it is a professor of classics, so maybe he was only trying to explain it as it applied to the Greeks.
* Come to think of it, maybe we should talk about the Greeks?  This article doesn't have an adequate worldwide view, it's mostly only about United States/Western eternal wars.  Certainly Israel/Palestine, Iraq/Iran, China/Japan, Korea, Eastern Europe, etc. has had their share of wars that could be called "eternal wars."
* I added the examples talked about in two of the other references (which were placed after the Cold War example but didn't have anything to do with the Cold War).  One of them, the Valentine article, is extreme POV, and that brings me onto my last concern.
* We need to include some examples of people who disagree.  It's true that probably most people don't disagree with the concept of eternal war as a concept, but finding articles that attempt to dispel each example of eternal war will present both sides of the issue.  Some people think that these wars are eternal wars to control the populace through made-up or overblown issues, and some people (probably most people?) think that they are legitimate exercises in warfare.  I've taken off the original research tag, but we really need some opposing viewpoints in here.  I'll try to find some good references for that as well. —Cleared as filed. 15:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better 

message: ::In Western democracies, the general population has historically rallied behind its leaders
Not sure about this, because it's multiple populations, one per democracy, each with its own set of leaders.  
And why do you prefer permanant over eternal?  I agree eternal is slightly unusual phrasing, but given the context, I thought it the best word.
Anyway, I'm off.  I'll have another think about it all in the morning.
Regards, Ben Aveling 09:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's okay to use it as a singular; like, "in kitchens, the microwave is often the last thing one cleans."  It's multiple microwaves in multiple kitchens, but we're only talking about them one at a time, right?  I think.  Heh.  About "eternal," it is unusual phrasing, so it kind of sounds like we're trying to make a slick word trick instead of use the best word for the sentence, but the reader doesn't really gain anything from it.  IMO. —Cleared as filed. 13:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plurals 

message: This should be merged with perpetual war. Can someone with knowlege of the mergeto or mergwith tag place such in these articles? - Leonard G. 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposed