Is war a necessary evil?

I liked being in combat. War is what it is. Bad, good, it does not matter.

Too vague to answer.

@hylian: Yes it is. We have plenty of food for everyone but some are too far away. Did you know there are more vacant homes in America than there are homeless people?

I wouldn`t think so and I wouldn`t say so.

@noone301994:

http://www.overpopulation.org/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/overpopulation/effect.html

Just do some research and me may be surprised by what you learn. Humans continue to create more babies. Then those babies will create more babies. and so on. Let's say that every person has two children. If we look at how many people are alive which is about 7 billion and if all of them have 2 children then the world will quickly be over populated.

@hylian: I know that there are a lot of people and the increase will be catastrophic but it isn't something we need to worry about right now. I'd give it at least one hundred years before things get really problematic. Just to put this out there, in China they have a one child policy and their population isn't increasing that fast anymore. I'm sure when things start to get really bad (like China) they will just implement policies to slow down the increases. Eugenics or war isn't the answer here...

@noone301994: we just need to figure out how to get things under control

Depends on what its fought for

Of course.

To quote someone from Gundam Wing, History is like an endless walz, three beats of war, peace and revolution

@hylian: So what, you think we need another world war to solve it? Mass-murder? Even if people are falling off Earth due to overpopulation that should never be the answer.

War is always fueled with greed.

Without greed, there would have been no advancement.

@noone301994: I'm not saying that war is the answer. War helps slightly keep the population down. Let's say that all war stops and we cure every disease. A lot more people would be alive and people would be living longer.That means that we would need to produce a lot more food and a lot more houses would need to be built.

@hylian: Yeah I guess that's true. I feel like humanity will find a way though. Maybe when it gets really bad we'll start to think about bases on the moon or redistributing people to certain places or making sure people don't have too many kids. I just don't see it as an immediate problem and yes, war does keep the population down but it really doesn't need to be knocked down that badly... Especially during the 20th century when over 50 million people died from WW2.

Necessary. Plenty of instances to back up my answer, and they all share the reason of stopping tyranny.

Of course I did. If modern wars are a sham then supposed hostilities between nations are cooked up specifically for the sham war.

9/11, Pearl Harbour, on and on.

What's wrong with you people? WHO carry out those studies and can they be trusted? Have you never heard of fudged science? cooked up data and science specifically designed as a propaganda tool?

Recently William Thompson , a CDC (Centers for Disease Control) whistle blower, blew the lid on the cooked up data he and other scientists prepared to falsely claim that vaccinations are safe. Look him up. Academia is bought and paid for.

@mollydanger2210: No you didn't... I asked, "if another country invades an innocent one and plans to commit genocide then I guess going to war in self-defense wouldn't be good for anybody either?" All you said was some left-winger stuff about current wars being faked to manipulate and gain things. That doesn't really answer my question.. Even if that were true, let's say for a minute it wasn't.. Would war be okay to protect innocent people then? Here let me throw a scenario by you (it's relevant because today is the anniversary of this day), During World War II the Italians asked the Greek Prime Minister, Ioannis Metaxas, if the Italians and Germans could pass through Greece to use certain strategic areas for launching military operations (basically collaboration). The Prime Minister said no and then Italy and Germany declared war and tried to invade Greece. In that scenario it was self-defense and genocide would definitely be on the table considering the Nazi's would be occupying the country. So was Greece wrong to defend themselves and their people?

@noone301994: " No you didn't... I asked, "if another country invades an innocent one and plans to commit genocide then I guess going to war in self-defense wouldn't be good for anybody either?"

And what countries do that today except the war-warmongering ones?

Y'know, like Jew controlled America, Britain and of course Israel? Your question is moot in an era of lies, fakery and manipulation; that's my point.

War is not necessary.

@mollydanger2210: You aren't answering the question because you know that war would be necessary in a scenario like that. You just think it's irrelevant because you believe something like that will never happen again. So war is necessary depending on the circumstances.

Sometimes.....

But not all the time. War is a tool. Money is a tool. These days, and many times throughout history, the lines between good and evil are blurred. It's not like the old days of WW2 when it seemed pretty clear the Nazis were evil. War can do great good, cause great harm or be exploited. It all depends on a multitude of things. And there is the fact that as someone already mentioned, war is mostly a matter of perspective.

One thing is for certain. Good, evil or somewhere grey. It isn't pretty.

War is only necessary so long as we have insane people who value money and power more than human life running the world.

Just because SOME scientists fudge the data doesn't mean ALL scientists fudge data. Also what if the people who claim other Scientists are fudging the data are actually wrong and the other scientists are right?

Only if your country is being invaded. That's the only logical reason I can think of for war.

And who cooks up the circumstances? Look at the bigger picture.

If vaccination data is fudged (which is certifiably true now thanks to whistle-blower evidence) you'd be an absolute moron to trust everything else. I'm just saying.

As I said just because some scientists fudged data doesn't mean that you can generalize every scientist. Just like you can't blame every Muslim for 9/11

Did I tell you to generalize or am I suggesting common-sense scepticism and caution given the recent revelations about vaccinations? If fraud is possible in one extremely important scientific study, is it not possible in all? Why would you now, given this new perspective, blindly trust in the integrity of scientific studies without first doing some digging?

@hylian: And my god you STILL believe 9/11 was carried out by Muslim "Extremists" lol.

Because this makes sense

and now your making yourself look stupid..........

"Because this makes sense"

Is that a belittling sarcasm I detect? really? You're telling me that after a whistle-blower comes forward and admits to fraud along with many other of his colleagues in cooking up data to lie about the safety of vaccinations, you have 100% trust in scientific studies? I have to ask, are you feeling okay?

"and now your making yourself look stupid.........."

Lol. I can't be more stupid than you are, that's for sure. I bet you also believe we went to the moon in 1969 too; because NASA and the US government said so.

The trolling is strong with this one.............

Do you know what a Dupe is?

yes

@hylian: Good. So how do you feel about being one then?

pretty stupid

Evil is necessary

Evil is necessary

As you should. So, if you want to stop feeling stupid; stop being a gullible Dupe.

Depending on the circumstances.

@mollydanger2210: I just listed an example of a scenario where the situation wasn't 'cooked up'.... Don't act like it's not possible for a country to go to war with ill intent WITHOUT someone pulling the strings. Stop trying to be radical and just open your mind. We all know that in self-defense if a country has to defend its innocent civilians against another state then it is necessary to go to war. Should the country that's being invaded just open the gates and let the invading army go in? That way war doesn't have to happen right?

Your problem is that you don't look into the causes of war, you just react to it and think it's presence is some sort of natural inevitability.

Yes. As sad as it sounds, sometimes there are people that just can't be reasoned with.

Yes, it is. Animals fight each other and whether we like it or not humans are animals. No better or worse.

Also anyone ever notice how some people claim you don't "think for yourself" or "look at real evidence" because you don't agree with what they think? Always entertaining.

@mollydanger2210 said:

Who cares? This is a hypothetical scenario. I'm saying that IF a state decides to, for no apparent reason, invade their neighbor in an unprovoked attack and plans genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, or any other crimes against humanity, then war should be necessary. If you don't agree with that because "it never happens that way" then we can agree to disagree. Good day.

Some wars have a purpose. When attacked, you fight back. Some wars are pointless. An example was the US decision toinvolve ourselves in Vietnam's civil war, in my opinion. So I'll go with yes because everyone has their own personal ambitions, and these ambitions tend to clash with others'. Whether it be for territory, wealth, power, oil, religion, or a larger cause, war will happen as long as people have OPINIONS and POINTS OF VIEW.

Only if it's for an important cause.

Often large-scale war can be avoided by taking out key individuals like Solemani