[darkninja1980]

https://eliteediting.com/resources/where...rch-paper/
CNN I do not watch or listen. See I can go on any Wikipedia and change everything.  Also this I have two college degrees.

Well you can also watch documentaries of first-hand accounts instead than relying in books, word of mouth has greater weight.
But i think you might have misunderstood, the reason that i havent given referencing to books, because wikipedia has them included on most pages at the end of the page, i know what you are expecting of me, i have done dozens of bibliographies for my essays.

yes true I was expecting that you write many research papers.

[geyu29]

https://eliteediting.com/resources/where...rch-paper/
CNN I do not watch or listen. See I can go on any Wikipedia and change everything.  Also this I have two college degrees.

Well you can also watch documentaries of first-hand accounts instead than relying in books, word of mouth has greater weight.
But i think you might have misunderstood, the reason that i havent given referencing to books, because wikipedia has them included on most pages at the end of the page, i know what you are expecting of me, i have done dozens of bibliographies for my essays.

yes true I was expecting that you write many research papers.      

haha back to the topic. What are you thoughts on current wars and their meaning and use of budgets.

[Trilly Reign]

It depends on your opinions and which " side " your on. There are many pros and cons to all wars. Some have more than others, but the bottom line is, it's war. No matter what happens, who's leader of what, or what gets put into play, war is going to happen. It's human nature. There are literally hundreds of reasons for war.

Scientifically speaking, World Peace is impossible. As humans are animals, we have animal behaviors, and even use our intellectual properties to improve on those behaviors ( causing things such as war ).
However, this is also what brought us things such has commercialization, and global manufacturing. Ensuring more people can get the food, and clothing they need, so much so, it's almost made hunting animals " rare "

Overall I just let it happen, and don't let it bother me. As long as it isn't something like another WW starts. Which, based on historian's predictions, should start somewhere in between 2025, and 2035.
( not quite sure how they do it though, so take it with a grain of salt )

[geyu29]

It depends on your opinions and which " side " your on. There are many pros and cons to all wars. Some have more than others, but the bottom line is, it's war. No matter what happens, who's leader of what, or what gets put into play, war is going to happen. It's human nature. There are literally hundreds of reasons for war.

Scientifically speaking, World Peace is impossible. As humans are animals, we have animal behaviors, and even use our intellectual properties to improve on those behaviors ( causing things such as war ).
However, this is also what brought us things such has commercialization, and global manufacturing. Ensuring more people can get the food, and clothing they need, so much so, it's almost made hunting animals " rare "

Overall I just let it happen, and don't let it bother me. As long as it isn't something like another WW starts. Which, based on historian's predictions, should start somewhere in between 2025, and 2035.
( not quite sure how they do it though, so take it with a grain of salt )

I have a feeling you've learnt Hobbes' a little bit.

But politically speaking, dont you think people should have right to vote to enter a war or not? practically it might create further internal tension if there is confusion but nonetheless it is a possibility, but it should be the choice of the civilian to enter to support the armed forced. Where has bush and tony blair gone? they set up fixed interviews from time to time which i think is really funny - only answering questions to what they feel is worth answering, i would like some veterans to have a live interview with Bush or Blair.

Secondly, if a country is in civil war, by human nature they would be more lenient to maintaining their power within their country, rather having an external force with completely different political influence, policy, belief and values which create further decline in coming to a peaceful solution. The British in Afghanistan tried to have stronghold in kabul around 1839, they were thrown out, this happened multiple times while they were heading back to India their 'company' were slaughtered by afghan fighters, and similar events happening all because these 'colonials' who wish to rule over a people are not appreciated, the people in kabul and afghanistan took to the streets and tensions built up.

When you say globalization, that had different outlook from the early centuries than what we see now, hong kong is one of those examples. I don't think you can make a sweeping statement and say that wars HAVE brought commercialization. For Iraq, how much commercialism do you need to make money to invest on its own people with one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Wars have also brought destruction of history and loss of life, which people often not speak of although it is rhetorical, its important to state the obvious.

Thirdly, they had a doomsday clock during the cold war since 1947, i think economics and the economy will be the root cause of a third world war, trade wars will continue for some decades for sure. But a world war i dont think we will see in our lifetime i hope, but migration and economy will influence alot of the international co-operation and creating new Bloc's. Brexit in UK gave the power of UK to Germany, and now the leader of europe is germany.

But i have to disagree with your human nature analogy, because ive come across different kinds of people from different parts of the world, and believe me not everybody aspires to have more than they have, in some countries it is a societal value to live a certain quality of life, like having enough food to eat 3 times a day which is enough for them, they may even have farms to feed themselves, Mongolia, Kazakhtan. But if i go into a country like australia, you will see a 'homeless' guy talking on an iphone (yes, an iphone), or UAE where money means alot of respect which is technically bought with wealth. And i think you are only referring to world leaders with your analogy not people in general.

[Trilly Reign]

It depends on your opinions and which " side " your on. There are many pros and cons to all wars. Some have more than others, but the bottom line is, it's war. No matter what happens, who's leader of what, or what gets put into play, war is going to happen. It's human nature. There are literally hundreds of reasons for war.

Scientifically speaking, World Peace is impossible. As humans are animals, we have animal behaviors, and even use our intellectual properties to improve on those behaviors ( causing things such as war ).
However, this is also what brought us things such has commercialization, and global manufacturing. Ensuring more people can get the food, and clothing they need, so much so, it's almost made hunting animals " rare "

Overall I just let it happen, and don't let it bother me. As long as it isn't something like another WW starts. Which, based on historian's predictions, should start somewhere in between 2025, and 2035.
( not quite sure how they do it though, so take it with a grain of salt )

I have a feeling you've learnt Hobbes' a little bit.

But politically speaking, dont you think people should have right to vote to enter a war or not? practically it might create further internal tension if there is confusion but nonetheless it is a possibility, but it should be the choice of the civilian to enter to support the armed forced. Where has bush and tony blair gone? they set up fixed interviews from time to time which i think is really funny - only answering questions to what they feel is worth answering, i would like some veterans to have a live interview with Bush or Blair.

Secondly, if a country is in civil war, by human nature they would be more lenient to maintaining their power within their country, rather having an external force with completely different political influence, policy, belief and values which create further decline in coming to a peaceful solution. The British in Afghanistan tried to have stronghold in kabul around 1839, they were thrown out, this happened multiple times while they were heading back to India their 'company' were slaughtered by afghan fighters, and similar events happening all because these 'colonials' who wish to rule over a people are not appreciated, the people in kabul and afghanistan took to the streets and tensions built up.

When you say globalization, that had different outlook from the early centuries than what we see now, hong kong is one of those examples. I don't think you can make a sweeping statement and say that wars HAVE brought commercialization. For Iraq, how much commercialism do you need to make money to invest on its own people with one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Wars have also brought destruction of history and loss of life, which people often not speak of although it is rhetorical, its important to state the obvious.

Thirdly, they had a doomsday clock during the cold war since 1947, i think economics and the economy will be the root cause of a third world war, trade wars will continue for some decades for sure. But a world war i dont think we will see in our lifetime i hope, but migration and economy will influence alot of the international co-operation and creating new Bloc's. Brexit in UK gave the power of UK to Germany, and now the leader of europe is germany.

But i have to disagree with your human nature analogy, because ive come across different kinds of people from different parts of the world, and believe me not everybody aspires to have more than they have, in some countries it is a societal value to live a certain quality of life, like having enough food to eat 3 times a day which is enough for them, they may even have farms to feed themselves, Mongolia, Kazakhtan. But if i go into a country like australia, you will see a 'homeless' guy talking on an iphone (yes, an iphone), or UAE where money means alot of respect which is technically bought with wealth. And i think you are only referring to world war with your analogy not people in general.

Thats not what I was saying at all. Lol. You completely misunderstood.

I was talking about human nature. Our natural, or " animal " instincts.
Hunting, Eating, Getting Shelter, Clothes, Etc.
These are all in our natural instincts.
If you would have read what I stated a bit more closely, you'll see I said
" As humans are animals, we have animal behaviors, and even use our intellectual properties to improve on those behaviors ( causing things such as war ).
However, this is also what brought us things such has commercialization, and global manufacturing. Ensuring more people can get the food, and clothing they need "

Meaning, because we are more intelligent than most species of animals, we have turned smaller things, such has small groups of animals fighting, to all out wars.
However, using that same intelligence us humans have, we have been able to improve other natural instincts needs, such has the need for food, water, or clothing.

And my " Human Nature Analogy " is very real. If we didn't have a natural instinct to mate, almost no one would be mating, nor would we have love. Everyone has one, they just do different things to fill that need.

[geyu29]

Thats not what I was saying at all. Lol. You completely misunderstood.

I was talking about human nature. Our natural, or " animal " instincts.
Hunting, Eating, Getting Shelter, Clothes, Etc.
These are all in our natural instincts.
If you would have read what I stated a bit more closely, you'll see I said
" As humans are animals, we have animal behaviors, and even use our intellectual properties to improve on those behaviors ( causing things such as war ).
However, this is also what brought us things such has commercialization, and global manufacturing. Ensuring more people can get the food, and clothing they need "

Meaning, because we are more intelligent than most species of animals, we have turned smaller things, such has small groups of animals fighting, to all out wars.
However, using that same intelligence us humans have, we have been able to improve other natural instincts needs, such has the need for food, water, or clothing.

And my " Human Nature Analogy " is very real. If we didn't have a natural instinct to mate, almost no one would be mating. Everyone has them, they just do different things to fill that need.

So you're coming from psychological theorist point of view. The 'needs' you talk about are 'aspirations' and yes many people in a specific society of differing values do intend to build on those aspirations.
As psychologist and neurologists and some philosophers such as Rousseau have mentioned what i believe although it is a requirement to reproduce, we are not animals we have rationality and understanding better than any species on earth of the world around us and thus we have come this far in our human development. Reproductivity is a topic best handled by philosophers because it has a broader arguments for it.
But i do not agree with a natural instinct to build upon a social status or misuse of power and disregard for other people for the sake of personal interests, you might apply that to some leaders which are put in situations to either 'do' or 'do not' by their 'advisors', or one individual with the use of his own rationality. What we taught from birth, we follow and build upon that, that is totality of this argument, i believe because i have been convinced by it.
But plato and descartes say that we are already born with knowledge, which is another topic of conformity and subjectivity of knowledge.(https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/)
We are not predictable in our actions, because freedom to choose and rationalise is used by each individual and does not reflect generalization of this view, but what is often agreed upon by philosophers is that humans are motivated by emotionalism.

But i guess your point of view is reflective to some extent to the answer to the main question of war. That is true, when put in a place of exercising power, a leader would look to the greatest benefit to its own people and possible benefits of his decisions, but as we know leaders are influenced by bureaucracy, after he is human, if you put 10 people in a room and 9 agree and 1 doesnt agree, the result would be that the 1 person would shift their view also (neurologists study -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585332/)

But i cant come to the conclusion yet to decide 'animal behaviours' and 'human behaviours' to be equal because i havent researched enough of that topic. But your point is a beginning to that argument, i cant give comparison of the great philosophers, if philosophy is applied here. Although i have come across many great philosophers which have provided understanding on behaviourism.
I suggest you read on the studies of behaviourism by neurologists (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622749/) if you dont agree with philosophy.

[Trilly Reign]

[quote='Trilly Reign' pid='859750' dateline='1549829497']

I suggest you read on the studies of behaviourism by neurologists (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622749/) if you dont agree with philosophy.

Your not even talking about the same thing as me. You obviously keep taking what I'm saying, the wrong way. I get what your saying, but I'm talking from a scientific stand point, which supports it's self. It's just how we work. No matter how you try and change it, it's fact. That's how the brain works.

http://www.eoht.info/m/page/Love+the+chemical+reaction

https://now.tufts.edu/articles/war-instinct

[AnnaSmit]

Today wars seem meaningless at first glance, but in reality, they are for economy, resources, and influences. And it's a shame now that they start when someone wants it. The world community cannot stop this process. Few restrictions and a lot of grief and confusion.

[geyu29]

Today wars seem meaningless at first glance, but in reality, they are for economy, resources, and influences. And it's a shame now that they start when someone wants it. The world community cannot stop this process. Few restrictions and a lot of grief and confusion.

And people protest against their leaders and achieve nothing. Palestinians were shown being bombed on video in 2017 when US recognized Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
Its a shame that such actions are taken, why the hell should US care for Israel when they are killing innocents, then there are 'Religious TV personalities' in the US who get a good amount of coverage saying that 'US Christians should protect Israelis' because of some damn history.
But the thing supporting Israel means keeping pressure on the Arab countries such as Iran (asian country), Turkey etc.

Everybody has f***ing interests, but its important to raise your voice, because others will support and join you.

[zennyx]

well think about it, the USA is fighting people who wear flip flops in the desert and still can't win.