jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (104 posts)

I'm so sick of war

  1. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    Does anyone else not get incredibly angry at the amount of money that is being wasted on war?

    The bottom line is that all that money could easily supply every single American (and every other person in the world probably) on outstanding health service for the rest of their lives, excellent food, and an outstanding education.

    It's not that we don't have the technology and resources to solve this planet's woes.

    It's that there are some that cannot get away from a caveman mentality. They have to be king of the roost, better than others, prove a point, and destroy anybody who gets in the way.

    Like Einstein, I despair at the stupidity of humanity.

    As for the wars, I suppose until the youth of the current  generation comes out in the force that the boomers came out in the 60s/70s against Vietnam, these wars will continue to bankrupt and destroy.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who doesn't hate war?!

      But I suppose you think everyone's gonna actually behave in every way so that ALL violence will end?  Like, criminals will suddenly decide they're gonna get along with everyone so there'll be no need for jails or prisons, and nobody will have mental illness so there'll be no need to ever put anyone in institutions?

      Not gonna happen.  Like melpor said, that's the nature of mankind.   We can't go back to the garden of Eden and change our minds.....

      Wars, like the justice meted out by imprisonment, etc., are the hand of justice for the common good.  At least justified wars are.  Not all, but many, unfortunately.

      And as far as money, if money weren't spent for wars, then it would just be spent by greed or fraud or uselessness by many people. 

      And....some things are worth fighting for, some ways of life.  If you owe no allegiance to any Country, you probably wouldn't understand that.....

      1. tonymac04 profile image86
        tonymac04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry but I cannot accept that we just have to have wars. There must be better ways of solving disputes. I also do believe that we humans can get better. We don't have to stay in the mode of our lowest natures. We can, and must, change our minds. If we couldn't what would the purpose be of learning and education?
        It is obscene that money is spent on killing people.
        To put this into a perspective read pilgrimboy's Hub on the Military Industrial Complex: http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Military-In … lth-Bomber
        We don't have to give in to excesses of testosterone!

      2. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "But I suppose you think everyone's gonna actually behave in every way so that ALL violence will end?"

        Isn't that somewhat of a presumptuous statement?

        It is, of course, erroneous, but them most presumptions are.

    2. thisisoli profile image73
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree completely, war is definitely something that continues needlessly.

    3. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As others have commented: War is natural to man.
      He is a "natural born killer."
      The hope that he might "change" to a more social, civilized creature is based upon pure idealism.
      The possibility does not exist before there is a cataclysmic reduction in human population and a return, as Einstein opined, to the stone age.
      We're stuck with the way we are!

      1. tonymac04 profile image86
        tonymac04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is such a counsel of despair! Surely we can change, surely we can learn and behave differently? I'm not convinced at all that "man" is a "natural born killer."
        I think people become killers, and especially in war, because they are fed the lies about national security, national pride, national sovereignty and their critical reasoning is turned off by ideology.
        Surely what makes us human is the ability to reason, to think, to foresee consequences of actions and so to change our actions to achieve a better outcome. That is not idealism, that is plain common sense.
        The lies of nationalism are far more idealistic in the sense of not being based in reality. National borders are artificial constructs which exist only in our minds - and we can learn to think and behave differently. If I did not believe that I would commit suicide! Because what would be the point of trying to improve, trying to educate our children, trying to be better people if "We're stuck with the way we are"?

        1. qwark profile image59
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yep Tony:
          Man is earth's prime predator. No doubt about that.
          He has had to kill to survive for about 4 million yrs.
          It comes "naturally" to him.
          Without tooth and claw, he has gained a gift i.e. "reason" that makes him unique amongst all life.
          Hopefully, you have studied the rise of man. There is not a time in his "forward" movement that he has not been involved in killing his own kind.
          He is a product of time and the processes of natural selection.
          He carries on today researching for more efficient ways to protect himself and destroy others of his species, en masse, who have the same genetic programming for predation and survival.
          I would like you to provide me with well reasoned thoughts about why you think "man" can change his "killing" ways.
          Nice chatting with ya.

          1. tonymac04 profile image86
            tonymac04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Humanity is unique in life in that we have, s you say, reason. Which is what can help us to change our "killing" ways. We can reason with each other, we can find better ways to do things.
            A lion cannot change from being a "natural born killer" because she operates on instinct. A cow likewise cannot refrain from eating grass, because that's the way they are made.
            But we humans can choose - we are not driven by instinct. We have the possibillity of choosing our response to a stimulus. That is what makes us unique in the animal kingdom of which we are a part.
            We have the ability to reflect on our nature, to understand ourselves. That is why our killing ways, as youcall them, are actually a matter of choice and are not essential to our being.
            The fact that through the ages humanity has spent a lot of time and energy on killing others of the same species (something other species don't do much of - lions don't go about killing lions, nor do pigs stick it into other pigs!) is no valid reason to continue doing so.
            We are faced with a stark choice - either we spend the moeny we presently spend on arms and weapons of destruction o9r spend that money on improving the lives of all on earth. Choosing the former will lead to the destruction of civilisation within a relatively short time. Choosing the other might heop to save the planet from over-population and enable us to continue doing what we do best - thinking and reasoning and buiilding.
            I think the choice is actually that stark. With almost 7 billion people on the planet our resources are being stretched to the limit. To continue to waste them on armaments is utter folly.
            There are different ways of settling disputes, and as we are a highly creative species I think we can find more.
            As I said before, if I didn't think we had the capacity to change our ways I would give up. Because if there is no possibility of change, then there is no purpose to life.
            So no, I don't think we humans are "natural born killers". There is a lot more to us than the predatory instinct. We are nurturers, builders, creators, communicators. The "fight or flight" instinct is part of our basest emotional make-up.
            That's why I think humanity can change its "killing" ways - these "killing" ways are no longer fit for our continued existence, if in truth they ever were, but are more likely threats to us. MLK put it well when he said that we either live together as borthers or die together as fools.
            I would rather be a brother than a fool.

            1. qwark profile image59
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Tony:
              yes, we (man) has the ability to do all of that, but "he" will not.
              He is too infantile and much to fragmented in too many ways to ever come together as a cohesive unit working in concert for his survival and improved living conditions.
              All that you mention in ref to 'potential" is pure idealism. It is but "hope." Hope for that which cannot be realized.
              As human population burgeons, human problems follow suit.
              There is no possibility that we will change Our "killing ways." Not at all!
              You've read some of my "hubs" Tony. I make the case in many of them that the only hope for man is a "1 world gov't" and that can only be realized if there is a massive reduction in the human population.
              That reduction is a surety!
              Once that has come-to-pass, it will take another 25 - 50 thousand yrs for a mutated man to again rise to heights of domination on this planet. THAT will only happen IF man is controlled and guided by a 1 world gov't dedicated to the survival of the human species.
              There is "ABSOLUTELY" no purpose for the existence of man!
              MLK was prophetic when he said that we either live together as brothers or die together as fools.
              WE ARE FOOLS! and we will die as fools.
              Man will not become an extinct species but he will revive metamorphosed into an (hopefully) improved life form over the next couple hundred thousand yrs.
              Thanks for the "hopeful" response.

      2. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        Quack! smile

        1. The rule of law has always been there to ensure that man does not live like an animal. Punishment is meted out precisely because it is not acceptable to the majority.
        2)All religions, apart from being an opiate to the masses, encourage the higher spirit within man. Of course, all individuals are different. Some definitely have more of a killer instinct than others. It is those with the greater killer instinct that pose problems when there is not need for war. However, when danger strikes, they're great at protecting other people. I have no beef with soldiers. I admire them greatly. I just think that soldiering should be a last resort.
        3) If you're saying that man is nothing more than an animal, then I can understand where you are coming from. However, even the animals don't go out and instigate things like genocide.
        4) Science is coming up with some interesting information. About a decade about, in the UK, the following was discovered:

        *Men who had a certain gene, with a particular type brain chemistry, and had a abusive childhood had an 85% chance of becoming violent crminals.

        *Men who didn't have the gene and didn't have that brain chemistry, but did have an abusive childhood, only had a 15% chance of becomeing a violent criminal.

        *Men who had the gene but not the brain chemistry, but grew up in a normal home, only had a 15% chance of becoming a criminal.

        What this says is that people have different brain chemistry and different genes, and that while there are those that are violent predators, and will go to war at the slightest inclination, there are a lot more people who prefer to live in peace with others.

        So, while you may well believe that humans can only war with others, I believe that there are other options.

        And, quite honestly, if we don't find them soon, I think we're doomed to extinction within the next few 100 years as we wipe ourselves out.

        1. qwark profile image59
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This is the only thing I agree with you on:
          "And, quite honestly, if we don't find them soon, I think we're doomed to extinction within the next few 100 years as we wipe ourselves out."
          Thanks for the opinion.  smile:

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Quack. smile

            1. qwark profile image59
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hahaha...back at'cha!  smile:

    4. Pcunix profile image89
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have often said that we could take a tenth of the money spent on wars and use it for some well placed bribes that let companies like McDonalds and Walmart in and we'd accomplish our goals far more easily.

      Most of this crap comes from poverty and ignorance.  Build up the country and you can eliminate most of the excuses for war.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @Pcunix, at the height of Apartheid, I was working for a company that trained computer personnel. My clients were all the big Oil companies, and other American companies. I was able to train and place 'people of color' with them. I believe that in not withdrawing from the South African market, they did a lot more for the country by employing black people on an equal footing. What it did was force many white South Africans to work with black people and see them as human beings.

    5. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ah well, I certainly share your emotions on the topic, but looks like there is nothing to be done to fix it. Man in his modern power does not have any natural predator to keep the population numbers down to the reasonable limits, so the only way nature still has in its possession is man killing another man. Considering the exponential population growth, I would expect wars with exponentially growing atrocities...

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Misha smile Nice to see you.

        Yes, you're right. The Petntagon said last year that they expected g lobal wars to increase as people started fighting over food and resources over the next decade.

        I suppose, while I'm a pretty strong woman, I'm  also a pacifist at heart. I want the best for everybody. I realize there has to be a balance because tsome will always be takers and warriors and others will always be givers and healers. All are needed to make the world go round. I just think that when it gets out of balance, as it has, we are doomed!

    6. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Duhh.... But I dun did learned economics in my College!! When spendin the moneyz, it done helps make people buy things!! GDP dun goes up!"

      When you say "I'm sick of how much money is wasted on war", you're greeted as a wonderful person on these forums.

      But when you say "WWII did NOT pull us out of the Great Depression" (essentially the same thing), you get told you're an idiot.

      Welcome to Keynesian Economics.

      I highly recommend you read the book "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @EvenGRogers, I think you clicked the wrong reply as I have said nothing about WWII pulling anyone out of the Great Depression. I also searched for it on the page and couldn't find it. Topic didn't even occur to me. smile

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Indeed, you didn't. But it must be said and noted that the two statements - both of which everyone seems to agree with - are contradictory.

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @EvenRogers. Again, I must confess that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea which two statements you are referring to.

            'Everybody' is a rather large number - nearly 7 billion on this planet, I believe. Again, I have no idea whom you mean by 'everybody.' I actually don't even know what you're referring to.

            Which two statements contradict each other?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              exactly 305,938,381 people on this Earth think that FDR saved us from the Great Depression through WWII.

              Yet, with these wars, exactly 298,748,988 people think that the wars are a drain on the economy.

              I am using this forum topic - the war is a drain on the economy - to further advance the argument that WWII did NOT end the Great Depression.

              This is my argument.

              I'm sorry if I hopelessly confused you.

              PS - those numbers are completely made up. But I used them to illustrate that asking me to deliver a specific number is pointless.

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                @Evan, Aha, I see where you are going. You need to be more precise when you speak to me! I'm such a dumb cluck sometimes! smile

                Okay, so just let me repeat back to you what I think you're saying before I respond.

                You're saying that war, as an industry, is responsible for keeping the American economy going? And that if the war wasn't there, there would be an even greater recession, and that the money that is supposedly saved by not going to war wouldn't be there?

                Is that what I hear you saying?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No , I'm not advocating that side - others are.

                  Just about every ameican I meet (I'm an American) believes that the Great Depression ended only because of WWII.

                  I'm pointing out that this is a foolish idea.

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    @Evan, well, then, I must confess to being even more confused as to why you are addressing this to me and not to everybody else who made this claim. Personally, I've never even heard of it, which is probably why I had no idea what you were speaking about.  In any event, please feel free to post this generally at the bottom of this thread.

                    Thank you for your contribution even though it was way off topic for me.

      2. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        I haven't read the book, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me there are a couple of key differences that make comparing the two statements kind of meaningless.

        In World War II, most of the factories that produced the weapons, vehicles, etc. that we were going to war with were domestic, so the people getting the wages were Americans. Now, many of the manufacturing facilities are in places like Mexico and China, so US taxpayers are paying the wages of foreigners instead of ourselves.

        Not only that, we're getting substantially less back in corporate and income taxes. In the 1950s, the average effective corporate tax rate was more than 49%. In the 90s, it was 25.3%. Almost 60% of US corporations paid no taxes at all for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

        At the same time, CEO pay has ballooned while the top marginal income tax rate has declined. 1965 seems to be the first year there's data about the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay, but in '65 the ratio was 24:1. In 2005 it was 262:1. In the 40's and 50's the top marginal income tax rate ranged from 81-91%. Today it's 35%, and thanks to the 15% capital gains tax rate, a lot of CEOs don't even pay that much. So US taxpayers are paying these guys 10x more and getting only a third as much (if that) back.

        To recap, in WW2 and its immediate aftermath, we were shelling out mountains of taxpayer money to support the war effort, but getting a significant percentage back, directly through wages to American workers and indirectly through tax revenues that, after the war was over, were used to pay for massive public works projects like the interstate system. Today, we are shelling out mountains of taxpayer money to support the war effort, but most of it is going to line the pockets of the super-rich.

    7. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      War is the result of a failure in politics.  Negotiations break down and the aggressor makes his move.  However in recent history the paradigm has shifted to the perpetuation of a supply and demand scenario.  The US has set itself up as the major suppliers of arms and experts to other countries where control is wielded by dictators who we find to protect "American Interests".  Everybody gets paid and the circumstances and results are fabricated to fit the situation.

      Our Plutocracy is set up this way and we are helpless to change it as long as the money is the prime reward for our politicians and industry.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @rhamson. That's an interesting statement. Is there any evidence for it?

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Take a look at these videos about the rise of the Military Industrial Complex.

          http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/vi … al+complex

          When you are done take a look at the dictators we have placed in charge of these countries most of which had lucrative military equipment contracts with the US.

          http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/h … ors-redux/

          "At this time, the Military (all branches) costs the taxpayer (i.e. your children and grandchildren) over $850 billion a year in direct costs, not including war fighting funding, contingent funding and support. Several times a years, between bloated and porky budgets, Congress passes (very quietly) supplemental funding bills of $50 billion or $60 billion to pay for support of our troops and fighting the two wars we are fighting and the dozens of other overseas "secret" operations you never hear about, unless you go look at Wikileaks (which, I admit, I haven't visited yet - but I will one of these days!)

          If this doesn't shock you, nothing will. The total amount of money spent this last year on all military and war fighting spending (including supplementary and other "hidden" costs that are not publicized) totaled about $1,400 BILLION dollars. This includes R&D, war funding, production, maintenance of dozens of military bases and equipment, aircraft, ships, personnel and tech reps both in the USA and abroad and everything else that is spent on or about the military. $1.4 Trillion dollars. Almost half of it is not advertised because it is hidden in contracts to the industrial part of the complex and hence not visible as a "purely" operational military expenditure."

          If you want to read the whole article here is the link.

          http://financialsense.com/contributors/ … al-complex

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @rhamson, Thanks. I'm familiar with Eisenhower's warning. I'm also farmiliar with the CIA influence in certain African counntries (I come from one. The CIA asked South Africa to invade Angola and South Africans were kept in the dark about the war for years. I only knew about it for two reasons. The first is that I was outside South Africa when SA went into Angola and so could read it in the press. And the second was that coincidentally, I met a guy, later to become my boyfriend, who was part of the CIA meeting and knew about it. He told me about it when I mentioned that I didn't understand why nothing was being said in the South African press about the fact that we were at war with Angola.)

            I guess I'm asking if there is evidence of a more direct nature - not juts putting all the pieces together, but somethere where a current senator or congressmen admits to it.

            1. rhamson profile image75
              rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The short answer is no.  None of the slime bags or soon to be converted slime bags would ever admit to this type of goings on.  With your past experience with the CIA could you even imagine such a thing?

              Our (US) government is involved in so many dirty little secrets that one is a cover for the other in many layers.  The ease at which our government can operate in illegal ways is kept far from the publics eye.  How would it look otherwise if the leaders of the free world were seen as arms dealers, torture advocates and corrupted officials.  The oponents to this image love to site all the wonderful things we do for the world but the bottom line is capitalism unchecked and having bought much influence can look quite dirty in the light of day.

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                @rhamson. Wegll, I wonder how it will all end. The biggest issue is one of diversion. Nothing like getting people to focus on gays and abortion and celebrities, etc. That way, nobody gets to focus on what's really destroying the lives of ordinary people financially.

                1. rhamson profile image75
                  rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree wholeheartedly.  The electorate don't understand these ploys offered by our politicians.  I want to vomit when I hear one of these slimebags address the other in congress with "The gentleman from ....... and I want to thank you for your service".  There are only two things a politician is interested in, money and votes.  Other than that any issue is weighed upon the result it may have on those two things.  They serve to promote themselves.

                  Until this country gets out from under the plutocracy that is ruling it.  It will never change.

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I suppose, that's not going to happen anytime soon?

          2. tonymac04 profile image86
            tonymac04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for this link - it is great!

    8. r-l-bean profile image62
      r-l-beanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Amazing, I just told my grandmother the exact same thing last night. Wars are instruments of finance. Until money has no meaning, there will be wars.

  2. aware profile image72
    awareposted 5 years ago

    your not alone.

  3. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 5 years ago

    Wars are one of the few things I hate in this world but unfortunately that is the nature of man and the way of the world to solve relationships between nations on this planet. It has been going on since biblical times, the Bible is full of war history. There will alway be war somewhere in this world until people stop argueing about their differences and just learn to get along with each other.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wars are only as good as the value you invest in them.  If it be a moral issue such as dictatorial genecide then there is a moral obligation to change it by whatever means.  If this what we were aligned with in the middle east then there could be few choices but to participate.

      Is war a part of our nature? If it is then I guess you are right and we haven't evolved very much.

      But recent wars and especially the ones the US get involved with are due to the plutocratic influence of our handelers.  We are told oil is what the world needs to survive and the means to get it soon outweigh our morals and we become at one with our enemy. 

      The good old fashioned method of fear is how it is brought to us and we sell ourselves to repeat the past and the farces that soon become apparent.

  4. tonymac04 profile image86
    tonymac04posted 5 years ago

    You're not alone at all!
    I recently wrote a Hub about nationalism - one of the major causes of war. Nationalism is an evil that we can do without. And when we grow up sufficiently to do without it we will find peace.
    In you OP you quoted Einstein - he called nationalism "the measles of humanity". We have the technology to eradicate measles as a childhood disease - let's also innoculate ourselves against nationalism and all the lies it propagates.
    Jimi Hendrix said "When the love of power is replaced by the power of love we will know peace." Nationalism is the quintessence of the love of power.
    As Wilfred Owen wrote:
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

    1. melpor profile image89
      melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Tonymaco4.

    2. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have never understood this fanatism with patriotism. It's nothing more than nationalism, and nationalism leads to wars because the people think they're superior to everybody else.

      I personallyy believe it's the refuge of small minds who think there is something noble about dying for one's country. Does it every occur to these people that while they may be dying for their country, they're murdering and killing the people of another country? Do they honestly believe, 'God' is on their side?

      I cannot begin to comprehend the mindset of this kind of incongruance.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Again, it's about believing in a certain way of life, a specific set of values.  Ones we want our kids and grandkids to grow up in.  Still, you don't understand...

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I understand. Completely. I just think the mindset is one of complete ignorance.

          1. Pandoras Box profile image82
            Pandoras Boxposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What does our endless war in Afghanistan have to do with our children and grandchildren? To teach them the lessons of how to start needless and foolish wars all over the world?

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            To teach them that our government and military have the guts and willingness to at least try to defend them from terrorists like the 911 murderers.   Apparently, some of our citizens think that's not to be regarded as honorable.

            Why don't you figure out a way to get someone in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever Bin Ladin is, to give him up so he can be brought to justice, instead of nipping at the hand that's protecting all of us?   Somewhere, someone knows where he is.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              We aren't succeeding in accomplishing anything useful to the US in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a bunch of uncivilized fanatical Muslims whose only objective is to get our army to leave. Apparently Bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan. We are just wasting lives and incredible amounts of money on a quest that's unlikely to succeed.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But I sure feel safer knowing the troops are seeing this thing through to the end.  Don't you?  Or have you really thought about that? 
                What do you expect them to do?  Give up now?  Leave and give the Taliban what they want?

                I think one of the worst things that's happening is that U.S. citizens are harping on "war" in general and thus discouraging our soldiers in their mission.   It's starting to sound like the activism that discouraged our soldiers and veterans of Vietnam;  same carp all over again.

                1. DTR0005 profile image86
                  DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Brenda, what the "end" you are talking about? What is the goal? Are you going to change the Taliban's mind? Not hardly. I hate their agenda, but you can't fight an "idea." Being on Hubpages will teach you that. Instead of posting commentary on the forums trying to "one-up" each other (as we all do) we somehow believe that if we just "stay the course" somehow the Taliban will come around to another way of thinking.
                  You know, consider this. If you were really an enemy of the US and really small and poor in comparison, how would you fight us? Would you to beat us militarily? No.. we're too big and powerful. Or would you try to be an everlasting drain on our finances, be a sore that won't heal? I think you would do the latter. And guess what, that's exactly what they are doing.
                  This was really didn't cost "them" anything; after all, it's not really a war. Sure they fight and die, but in comparison, what did it cost them? Almost nothing.
                  But here's what they gained. The gained popular sentiment in the Moslem world. It was like, "see we told you all along the US was anti-Moslem and here's the proof..." We spend about a trillion dollars on THEIR anti-American propoganda campaign.
                  Bottom line may be this: a war has to have a end "goal" - if it doesn't it just goes on and on and on. Our end "goal" in this is to try to attempt to change the minds of people who have no traditional borders.
                  This isn't like fighting the Germans in WWII....

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You ask a good question about being an enemy of the U.S....
                    Actually, if I were an enemy of the United States, I would take full advantage of its open borders and "become" a citizen, a "sleeper citizen", then be an activist for "civil" rights and holler and whine while picketing in the streets for "religious tolerance" and/or gay "rights" (great distraction in that strategy!), all the while building up a social or church group that seeks to out-number the traditional society of America.  I might even seek public Office, playing on the grace and friendliness that America is known for showing the oppressed.  In effect, I would pretend to be one of the oppressed so that I'd be welcomed with open arms; from there, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump from being instrumental in changing the moral fiber of the great Nation.

                    Does any of that sound familiar?  911 terrorists who used our system to commit atrocities in the name of a lesser god; foreigners who come to America illegally (sometimes legally) saying they want to be citizens, but all the while wearing their own Nationality on their sleeves and inserting it into our school systems and public arena; (I'll post a disclaimer now, realizing that NOT ALL immigrants are like that, so don't take me wrong!); people who use the term "melting pot" to mean America is supposed to change instead of the potential citizen changing and adapting to American ways; people who want all the freedoms that America offers its citizens, but who insult the definition of patriotism.......on and on....

                    So, while I agree that war is to be avoided if possible, there still are some things worth going to war over!  But leave it up to the anti-war activists and all those others I mentioned, and by golly it won't be long before our war image is the least of our worries, 'cause America will be brought down from the inside-out.  That's the plan of those who hate America.   Looks to me like it's working well for them so far!  Dontcha think?

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OH, come on, Ralph! How can you argue against the wars?

                Keynes told us that wars and spending help stimulate the economy!

                Those "whacky disciples of Mises, who make up a cult" and their "Austrian Economics" are the weirdos who advocate ending wars as a drain on society.

                Which is it? Keynes or Mises?

    3. qwark profile image59
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I was born an American but  "Dulce et decorum est
      Pro patria mori," does not, has never related to me!
      Life is precious and I will not willingly lose it for a philosophy or belief!

  5. Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 5 years ago

    I Hate It So Much .... That I just want to Take Up Legs and deal to them seriously by outflanking them with a few well placed Kicks! sad

  6. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago


    Anybody heard of the Pax Romana?

    The Romans managed peace. Why can't we?

    I think it has more to do with childhood values instilled.

    I also query why a nation with a vociferous Christian right pays no attention to the words of Christ, "Turn the other cheek."

    Or 'They that live by the sword shall die by the sword?"

    Why is it that the nation with the most active Christianity in the world is also the one that is responsbile for continually going to war and not turning the other cheek?

    1. Flightkeeper profile image79
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Didn't the Romans have legions of centurions to manage that Pax Romana?

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The Roman Emperor lasted for 1600 years. They had political policies that enabled countries to keep their own culture. Yes, they had legions on othe outskirts of the Empire. However, they did not go to war. There is a difference between serving a protective function and continually going to war for the slightest thing.

        There is a thing called diploplocy. It is the art of avoiding war. It is also the art of knowing when a war is absolutely necessary and when discretion is the better part of valour.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image79
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well I would think having a whole legion of Roman centurions standing over you as a form of Roman diplomacy would make anyone amenable to Roman policies.

          1. 0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Have you ever studied Roman History? Your remarks indicate that you haven't. There is a vast difference between the policies and actions of the United States and that of the Roman Eimpire and the resulting Pax Romana. The US has military bases all over the world - outsidue its own borders. The Roman Empire only had military bases inside its own territory. The USA goes to other countries to The Roman eEmpire only indulged in border skirmishes to 'keep the barbarians out'.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image79
              Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm.  You are ignorant of the role of the Roman legions to keep that Pax Romana.  It was not limited to just the barbarians.  You should brush up on your reading.

              1. 0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You're nitpicking because you can't blow away the main points.

                The Romans kept thheir borders secure. After the initial. conquest to set up the empire, they did not go out and wage war with other countries. They did not keep bases in other countries.

                The point is that it's quite possible to have peace without sending one's soldiers to other countries. Rome started disintergrating when they stopped protecting their borders.

                The US, on the other hand, does not protect its borders (which is why there is so much illegal immigration), and does invade other countries.

                1. Flightkeeper profile image79
                  Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry to upset you but I am not nitpicking.  You are very ignorant of the role of the Roman legions when it came to keeping the Pax Romana.  In fact it sounds as if you are ignorant in how the Romans managed the Pax Romana.

                  To compare the US with the Roman Empire seems to be the done thing among certain circles, particularly in Europe but I find the mindset very ignorant.

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Which point, exactly, are you disputing?

                    That the Romans kept legion in other countries?

                    That the Romans invaded other countries after the Empire was established?

                    For the record, I had no idea that others in Europe were using the same analogy.

                    I used it because someone said it was impossible for mankind to live in peace. I dispute that.

                  2. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    chuckle big_smile

                    Flightkeeper, cool post. 
                    The teacher had me consigned to the corner, so I wuz too skeeerd to talk back to her....lol

                2. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  ((Taking off my ignorant dunce cap and coming out of corner) tongue----

                  I agree the U.S. does not protect its borders and invades other countries!   

                  So....supposing America starts strictly monitoring and closing its borders in an effort leading to restricting its policies and its armed forces to only America.........to which Nation would you be deported, Sophia?  Or would you give up your "world citizenship" and pledge allegiance to America?

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your response indicates that you don't understands what monitoring a border means.

                    I didn't say 'close the border'. I said monitor the border.

                    It seems that you can only see the world in a particular black and white 'either/or' stance, That is what causes wars. It's an attitude.

                    Your other comments belong to the same genre. Like I said, ignorance.

                  2. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sophia, would you mind answering this again?
                    I think you touched upon it once, but never the last part of the question....

                3. Aya Katz profile image89
                  Aya Katzposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No bases in foreign countries? I wonder what that Roman Procurator was doing in Judea at the time of the crucifixion.

                  1. 0
                    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They had conquered Judea? It was part of their Empire, was it not?

  7. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 5 years ago

    Wow, are you perhaps advocating the US apply the Roman model?

    As I recall history the Roman Armies at the behest of the Emperors expanded their domain over centuries by vanquishing any opposition to Roman occupation and acquisition of foreign lands. By this action the Roman Empire expanded by conquest of most of the “Known World.”

    If this is so, please send the Titles to Europe, Asia and the Middle East; all areas “conquered” or "mistakenly" freed by the United States during World Wars One and Two.

    Had the US not returned these areas and expanded our Empire perhaps a Pax United
    would have prevented all wars since 1945 and the world would not be experiencing terrorism and potential economic disaster.

    Maybe that was the real error at Potsdam.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      No, that's taking the comment too far.

      I merely used a 200 year capsule of Roman peace as an example that countries can live at peace with each other.

      There are many other countries that have also lived in peace for many years. Switzerland has always declared itself neutral. She did not get involved in either WW1 or WWII.

      Japan also had peace 1639 and 1862.

      The point is that it's possible not to go to war and to find other ways of sorting out problems.

      1. readytoescape profile image61
        readytoescapeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Let’s address the claims individually,

        “I merely used a 200 year capsule of Roman peace as an example that countries can live at peace with each other.”

        Apparently that was only possible because of the administration of the Roman Rulers. In this example, peace could not be maintained unless it is controlled by force from a single entity, not to mention that all potential opposing forces had been annihilated.

        “Switzerland has always declared itself neutral. She did not get involved in either WW1 or WWII.”

        Though the Swiss refused to fight, the Nazi’s had a plan in place to rule Switzerland proved by a document found in Himmler’s files named Aktion S. It was believed by the Nazi’s that the Swiss were of the Arayan race but merely misguided and would easily be brought into the German fold since the entire county was surrounded by German Forces. The Swiss claim of Neutrality would have meant nothing if the US had not destroyed the Nazi regime.

        “Japan also had peace 1639 and 1862”.

        Japan was also geographically isolated and under the control of a single entity the Emperors, enforced by the Tokugawa dynasty of shoguns beginning in 1603 and their imposition of isolationism in 1639 which held for two centuries until the trade agreement with the US in 1854.

        The point it appears in all the examples is that peace can only prevail if administrated by superior force.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this


          Thank you for taking the time to write valid responses. smile Much appreciated. smile

          My understanding of Roman history was that it always allowed the local population to retain their own way of doing things. So, I do not see a central government imposing its superior force on its people.

          Okay, so then,are you saying that peace can only be enforced when a central power controls the population it is administrating?  In other words, America can only be at peace with all the other nations when it controls everybody living in America? So, in that case, the constitution is a fraud/

          I take your point about Switzerland. Yet, it is possible that Switzerland might have negotiated another way? As history went the way it did, it is not possible for us to know. smile

          Yes, Japan was at peace because it was isolated. It, therefore, didn't need to go out to war with other countries.  How was the peace in Japan maintained by superior force? I am not talking about the mode of government inside a country. I am talking about going to war with other countries?

          Japan did not leave its border to go to war with other countries.

  8. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    War was confined to the borders.


    There was a long period of peace, so it is possible for humans to live in peace - which was my point of contention.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … Pax-Romana

    1. Flightkeeper profile image79
      Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You know if you read your first source, it disproves your presumption regarding the Pax Romana.  It was an illusion of peace. 

      In addition you should read more than one or two sources so you would get a better picture of those approximately 200 years that was termed Pax Romana by modern historians.

      1. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        The point is that the war was at the borders, and only at the borders.

        Do you have information to the contrary?

        Are you saying that it's not possible for the United States to keep peace in any other way than go to war?

        1. Flightkeeper profile image79
          Flightkeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again, if you do some further reading the Roman Legions had to do more than fighting barbarians at the border.  The fact that you said wars were confined to the borders indicates that it wasn't peaceful.  The only peace to be had was if you were in Rome itself, where the emperor was, for reasons that are fairly obvious.

          As for what I was trying to say about the US, I didn't say anything about it.  My point is that if you claim that peace can be had without war and use the Pax Romana as an example, then you used a very poor one.

  9. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 5 years ago

    I am just saying that though we all hate war, Peace can only be maintained through strength.

    And at times war is unavoidable, a course that we may be traveling now with the unknown impacts from the results of the current events in the middle east.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @readytoescape. Like you, I believe in a strong military.

      "Speak softly but carry a bit stick" says it all.

      However, a strong military does not mean that the military has to go to war at every little pin prick.

  10. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 5 years ago

    I'm sure someone in the US State Department does a cost benefit analysis of the costs and rewards of perpetual war.

    One thing for certain- the US can hardly shape the world to suit its business needs without regular wars. US corporations should be grateful that there is a demographic that will go for any kind of war.

    1. tonymac04 profile image86
      tonymac04posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed! The only people who get any kind of benefit from war are the arms manufacturers. They sit out of harm's way and reap in the profits while others do the dying. And those who do the dying are very often women and children.
      There is little if any honour in war - just a lot of blood and guts spilled for the sake of lies.

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image64
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this


        Is there a necessary war?

  11. readytoescape profile image61
    readytoescapeposted 5 years ago

    The Constitution invalid?

    Come on now, you know better than that, what does your local police force do?

    Enforce the peace by rule of law, law provided for by the Constitution.

    Again another example of peace through strength.

    1. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this


      My point, precisely.

      I was't talking about the internal politics about the country, so your point about all the countries having a centralized government is besides the point.

      I was talking about countries going to war with other countries, which is generally meant when one talks about the absense of peace. I was not talking about the internal governments of countries.

      1. readytoescape profile image61
        readytoescapeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are trying to reshape your point. You initially presented the Pax Romana as your example of peace. I simply put forth that example of peace was backed by strength of the Roman Legions. And that peace only came after the conquest and subjugation of other lands and peoples across “national” borders.

        Through these conquests, the peace was inside borders; those of the Roman Empire administered by the Legions.

        Yet in support of your example; and to follow the Roman Model

        Had the US not repatriated exiled, conquered and defeated nations and governments into the US freed lands of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East following WW II and instead absorbed these countries into the US as States peace may have indeed reigned since 1945 under a Pax United.

        1. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @Readytoescape. No, I'm not.

          Of course, the peace was backed by a strong military. That was not my point. My point was that the strong military is out of control when it constantly has to go to war over things that could be resolved diplomatically. Or, if the cost of war doesn't justify 'revenge', then just forgive it. The British never went to war with the IRA when they constantly bombed London in the 70s. They sat it out and eventually came to a diplomatic agreement.

  12. 0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago

    Obviously, not many have an issue with always being at war with other countries.

    To me, it's rather like constantly being at war with other individuals.

    One chooses from a variety of different methodologies how to handle these things.

    I can't argue with those who think that war is the best way of handling things.

    War sickens me. To me, it's the very last resort, when everything else has been tried and failed. All those young people dying. They're somebody's children. All that money spent when it can be spent on so many other neccessities.

    Nothing I can do about those who don't think twice about going to war. I truly don't want to argue about it. I'm sad that so many see the current wars as neccessary.

  13. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    I believe most people do share this sentiment. We don't have answers to these big questions. Countries fight for different reasons, but ultimately it's about victory. Japan fought for their emperor. To fight for an ideal is somehow more vague, because who defines it?

    There will always be wars of some kind.

  14. aware profile image72
    awareposted 5 years ago

    Remove the war gene.

  15. brimancandy profile image84
    brimancandyposted 5 years ago

    I don't have to read all of the posts to know that most people are going to agree that war is wrong! What is this selfish bullshit that the leaders of the modern world can't ever drop?

    Hundreds of thousands of people die before somebody surrenders? And, then what? They sign some stupid piece of paper saying that the war is over, and give in to stupid demands? Then we do what? Go in and help the country that we blew to bits rebuild? Gee, maybe if you hadn't gone to war in the first place, you fricking morons! we wouldn't have to be spending billions of the peoples tax dollars to rebuild anything. We all know who cashed in on that in Iraq. It starts with Cha and ends with a Knee.

    We are no longer going to war for the safety of Americans as a whole, but, more lately to protect and fluff American corporations and the corporate buddies of our senators. The people of America have said loudly that we do not want war, yet the people who run the country continue to ignore our voices.
    While they send their own children to foreign countries so that they do not have to fight.

    Am I bitter. Hell yes!

    They want to let gays in the military. I won't be the first to say no thanks. Even if I could serve, I wouldn't.

  16. Evan G Rogers profile image84
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    I just want to point out that if you agree with the OP, then you must certainly agree that WWII did NOT end the Great Depression.

    Read "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt for a fantastic display of this principle in action.

  17. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    DTR0005 asked if a person's an enemy of the U.S., how would they fight against us.  I replied they'd become "sleeper citizens" and attack from the inside.  And indeed they do. Like the Fort Hood killer and others.
    Below is just one more example.  Reportedly, the man came to live in the U.S. for that exact purpose.

    WASHINGTON (February 24, 2011)--The FBI has arrested a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian man attending college in Texas who’s accused of planning a terrorist attack using explosive chemicals.

    The FBI says his possible targets included the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.

    Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, who’s in the U.S. on a student visa and is attending South Plains College near Lubbock, was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

    Federal prosecutors say he had been researching online how to construct an improvised explosive device using several chemicals as ingredients.

    Federal authorities say Aldawsari's diary indicated the man had been plotting an attack for years and obtained a scholarship so he could come directly to the United State to carry out jihad.

    Aldawsari, who lives in Lubbock, entered the U.S. in 2008 to study at Texas Tech University.

    He transferred this year to nearby South Plains College.

    Federal authorities said the student, in online postings, wrote: "It is war
    ... until the infidels leave defeated,"

    If convicted, he could be sentenced to as much as life in prison and could be fined as much as $250,000.

    Texas Tech issued a brief statement after the arrest was announced Thursday that said, "Texas Tech University appreciates the FBI for informing us of Wednesday's events regarding a former Texas Tech student, and thanks them for their diligent efforts in protecting our national security and keeping our university and surrounding communities safe.

    "The university will continue to support the FBI in its investigation of this matter."

    Read More About The Case From The U.S. Justice Department

  18. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago

    And that too, Sophia, illustrates how the lack of patriotism is detrimental to any Nation; how American patriotism is needed in order to weed out anti-American sentiment and attackers; how it's practically impossible to be a "world citizen", because a "world citizen" claims no strong loyalty to any specific way of life.  As in religion, political affiliation challenges people to actually be decisive about what they stand for and what they will stand for from outside influences.  Fence-straddling is self-serving and also serves to dilute societies.
    Which is why, actually, there should be even more of a separation of Nations.  I believe the U.S. needs to stop being so open and tolerant of all other societies.  Doesn't mean we have to be at war with them!  But we need to protect ourselves from those other outside influences and cultures, because most times they're out to change us into something else, into "their" culture, or out to attack us from the inside out if they can't directly do it.

    So, as you keep calling for the U.S. to stop "warmongering", and dowing the U.S. for its attempt at fighting terrorism both here and there, why the heck don't you tell that to sleepers like the young man in the above article!?

    You may be sick of war.  Well, I'm more sick of terrorists invading my Country!