Violence and wars should be something of the past .
With all the money spent on education everyone should be educated about peace and resolving conflicts without the need of the use of force .

War makes some people a LOT of money.

Sure there would! They would form governments (for they have foolish egos too-thinking that mere mortals can form a State and tell everyone what to do), and vie for scarce resources...eventually leading to threats, violence, and warfare. Ces la vie!

couldn't do any worse than the way it's been...

lol...I'll grant you that!

i think its possible,just that i think the only way is to end violence and war is to do it by force.(more violence and war)

Good point. The history of the world for the past few - male dominated - millenia does not look all that great on the resume of the male of the species.

again I'll say.
fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity....

But it's not really. That's a very poor analogy on your part actually.

Even in civilian society we have police 'force'. And we need them. Take away the police 'force' and things would become extremely chaoic and unstable. It would become ever-man-for-himself.

Criminals could go around killing people, carrying guns, robbing stores and banks, with no resistance.

Even a lot of people who aren't criminals in our society might easily become criminals if there were no police 'force'.

So fighting for peace is not at all like screwing for virginity.

It's a necessary part of humanity. Unfortunately.

Now, clearly international wars are a different matter. Even though in some sense they too tend to be 'police-like' in some ways.

The problem with international wars is that typically one side is not all criminals and the other sides the 'good guys'. Both sides tend to beleive that they are the 'good guys'. So in that sense it can be quite different.

In a second sense, there is also a lot more 'collateral damage' of innocent civilians in a war zone.

War is ugly and horrible. But sometimes unavoidable (as in the case with WWII and Hitler's plan to take over the world). That was downright 'criminal'.

Having said all of the above, I'm not for war. I personally believe that diplomacy and peaceful techniques should be totally exhausted long before war is even considered, and war should always be the very last resort.

In the case of Iraq, I personally felt that we should have never invaded Iraq. I was totally against the invasion and the day that Bush invaded Iraq my heart sank and I gave up on America.

Thank God we now have Obama. It's extremly unfortunately that he's stuck with the aftermath of Bush's utter stupidity.

I'm certainly not going to say that all war is right. But clearly some wars are unaviodable (as in the case of WWII). Or at least if it was avoidable, the diplomacy wasn't in place to avoid it.

Diplomacy must come first! And be throughly exhausted before any thoguht of war is even brought to the table. That was NOT the case in Iraq I don't care what anyone says. The USA should have never invaded Iraq, that was utterly STUPID.

Just the same, we need 'force' to keep the peace. The mere fact that we always need police is a living testament to that fact. Take away the cops and all hell breaks loose.

Unfortunately there are people who can only be controlled by force.

That's just a fact of life. Total passivism will only get you enslaved by your enemies who don't mind screwing virgins against their will.

Had the world been passive toward Hilter we'd all be his slaves today.

I second that my dear lady !.
.

Sorry folks....double post .

Exactly! "War is a racket". -Smedly Butler

History shows that the opposite is TRUE .

doble post .

Violence tends to be systemic (top down and/or directly taught through generations). The way to end this is through Stateless society (to be VERY brief).

Its so sad but we can't do anything. This is our human nature

" I often wonder, How quickly would our differences melt away, if our planet was met with an outside, alien threat? But I say, is there not that threat amongst us already?"

Ronald Reagan in a speech to the U.N.

Good evening all.
I read with considerable interest the posts here on the nature of man's thinking about war.
I wonder if the idea of "Just war" has been considered as carefully as other forms, i.e economic war, religious war, etc.
I cannot conceive of man having a "nature" to be at war.
I do however consider the nature of violence, in its myriad forms to be part of the essential nature of man.
War is in many instances a culture. A culture of aggression and one upmanship. Both male and female.
The domination of one group over another is certainly the status quo
in all empiricist constructs although it does seem to me to be based on a fear of perceived cultural weakness.
I apologise if this appears rambling but I feel a need to understand the nature of man in relation to war. Your continued discourses are much appreciated.

but first and foremost to annul,abrogate the money ..which is impossible hence no way to end this through stateless society ...

money ..money ...money ...

war is part of our nature just the aims and tools had changed .

war for food - larger territory- better conditions-bigger quantity- .. etc. etc. /
and etc.