Is the age of war nearing an end?
Of course, there are still wars now, and I'm not suggesting that we'll have no more conflicts, but are major wars, where one country attacks another, on the way out?
Yes, wars will soon be over
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No, we'll always have wars
Side Score: 22
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I first started thinking about this after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and I saw all (or at least a great many) nations come together and push Iraq back. I thought that could possibly be the last invasion of one country into another. Then, after 9/11, I again saw all countries come together to universally condemn the attack, and I thought we were really entering a new age of peace. Of course, then that total bonehead of a president decided to use the unity that that event created to further his own political causes and invade Iraq (I'm not counting the invasion of Afghanistan, because that was a defense against further attacks by Al Qaeda) and I thought the fragile peace I had seen growing was gone forever. But now, even though there is still a lot of posturing, and there are a lot of areas that could flame up into a war, I feel like there's a chance that these flare ups could get smaller and smaller, and we fight finally see an end to peace in my lifetime (which still has a couple of decades left, God willing). Side: Yes, wars will soon be over
Yes, the USA is a HUGE nation, easily capable of housing multiple countries within, yet we are united. The more united the world grows, the less war we will have. A few things that divide us now are skin color, sex, religion, political views and simply people's differing personalities. To overcome this and become united despite this, despite fear or prejudice would make the world a better place, and help eliminate war for good. Side: Yes, wars will soon be over
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I just added my own argument on the opposing side, and I thought you could see who downvoted an argument (new to this). I just disagree with you regarding what causes wars today MAINLY, and in my opinion it's the fight and control over natural and human resources, not skin color, religion etc. Although those factors contribute. I don't think you are completely wrong, I just don't think that's the main reason for war today. A recent example is the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, over oil resources. Side: No, we'll always have wars
2
points
I agree with you Tural. I think think most wars are over resources. Race and religion are just the ways in which we choose sides. We have relative peace in this country because: 1) We settled this land with a relatively small number of people compared to the number of resources this land provided. 2) Our technology grew to keep pace with our growing population. 3) We have birth control, which helps us to keep our population from outstripping our resources. Unfortunately, these conditions don't yet exist in the rest of the world, and until they do (at least the last two), then we'll continue to have armed conflict (though it may not spill into other countries, so it might not technically be called war). Side: No, we'll always have wars
Oh, no, skin color to me means very little, but it is still a factor. When a black guy looks at a white guy, the biggest difference is skin. Even if in your mind you say "There's no difference", it's very natural to feel different, at least in some way. Some with male vs female. Most people don't want to be sexist, yet they still feel deep inside a little sexist. I should hope no one acts on feelings, because everyone is human. And yes, fighting over resources is probably the #1 reason. The actual people who fight the war though don't get paid a thing for that. The government gets rich, but that soldier doesn't gain a thing. What motivates him? And downvoting isn't rude by itself, but it lowers my rating on my profile. I have no idea why it matters, but I'd like to maintain high credibility if I can. But I'm not mad at you or anything. I just feel downvoting is better for bad, uninformative, purely opinionated comments that aren't backed by any sort of evidence or reason. But yeah, oil it a great motivator for governments, but what motivates the soldiers? Getting paid a million bucks doesn't mean much if you're dead, right? And if you live, you're still just a murderer. Even if you don't call war murder, you still pulled a trigger and watched someone die by your cause. The best way to do this is promise something in the next life. A billion dollars and a bunch of virgins. Take it on faith, and you'll do anything. Side: No, we'll always have wars
YEAH WITH THAT ATTITUDE, ASSHOLE Seriously though, if you want peace, then work for peace. If you want fighting, then fight fight fight. All people are only people. If the Constitution of the USA is true, then all people are born equally, thus they all have an equal shot to become an insane dictator who murders half the world, or a person who teaches peace and love and compassion. Or anything in between. I long for a world where words replace swords. Side: Yes, wars will soon be over
|
1
point
The peace that we almost have now is because we have one country, the U.S. that is so much more powerful than other nations. The U.S. is the only country right now that can invade another without threat of punishment. However, with China rising in power, we will again enter a period of uncertainty, although the two super powers may, hopefully, shy away from engaging each other in war, as long as other countries can count on at least one of the superpowers as an ally, they may feel comfortable enough to engage weaker countries in a war. Also, if global warming comes, there will be a strain on resources in third world countries, and nations will go to war against each other out of desperation. The super powers won't be able to contain all of these wars, if they even want to after dealing with their own issues, so this will definitely take us back into an era of war. Side: No, we'll always have wars
Hard decision to pick one side, but I choose this one. The reason: as long as we have an economy based on endless growth, violent control and the increasing apathy of the majority population, plus our dependency on fossil fuels in the Middle East. This issue is not entirely caused by fossil fuels, but most of it is. Water and food are inculded. So, there is a slight possibility that wars could end, but this all depends on 99% of the people left out of control of all the available resources in the world. Today, almost all wars are fough because of the need to have access to natural resources. As long as the 1% (mostly coorporaitons) control of all this, and de facto control political representatives (I'm speaking largely for the U.S.), there will at least be tention. So to end war, there needs to be an active uprise against these immense powers that have controlled the worlds political path for a very long time. We need to redistribute power of resources so that they can be delivered to those who need it locally, by as local powers as possible. In that way, people will actually feel that they have the ability to control their own access to the things they need to live a decent life. We need international organizations too, but todays power system just cannot allow peace. This will not be easy, and it won't happen overnight. An abrupt change will lead to the collapse of the world economy, since the 1% never will give up their position without a fight. But they depend on us, much more than we depend on them. We are the consumers, and we should use our choices to show them: I do not accept. So, "war will not be over soon", unless this concentration of power remains as it is. Side: No, we'll always have wars
Little wars between small states (countries) and little wars between a super power and small state... yes, it will continue. But I think that global war between opposing major powers is most likely over... it's the whole mutual destruction thing. Side: No, we'll always have wars
There will always be war. Hopefully however the way we carry it out can change so that it doesn't always just amount to the slaughtering of poor people. A war where the combatants use non-lethal weaponry and tactics is possible and would make for a neat movie script. We cannot do away with conflict but we could handle conflict more honorably. Perhaps the age of trying to solve political problems by mass killings is coming to an end as the vision of work camps for lowly types is being implemented by the crypto-nazis. "non-violence is the philosophy people adopt once they become sufficiently acquainted with the realities of serious interpersonal conflict." ~atypican Side: No, we'll always have wars
1
point
Unfortunately, I do not believe the war machine is close to being over. The fact is that without war, or at least the threat of it, there can be no status quo. If one country can bring war and another cannot, then the unprotected country will always fear and the protected country will always feel there is an advanage. If there are resources at play, the protected country may act via war to secure the unprotected county assets. We will never see a time of complete and worldwide peace. Side: No, we'll always have wars
1
point
|
