The insane cost of war.

[Priad]

forget the costs, if someone is going to kill houndreds of my people, innocent people that never did anything but work for a living, because they dont like Christians, I will go to war against them. War nowadays is mostly controled by needlerichard pencilpushing forgettards that haven't lifted a gun in their lives. How the forget are they going to know what to do??? We need someone more like General loving Patton(died in a car accident after serving in world war 1 and 2) to control the military. Now these bullstuff politics are going to get the people actually willing to fight for our freedom(and the % of people in the US who have served in the armed forces is less than 1% of everyone living in the US) Now I'm not sure about the rest of you guys/girls, but I am not going to sit idly by and wait for our country to be overrun and controlled by limp-richard friends who dont know violence. As soon as I am out of High School(I am a sophomore) I am going to enroll in the military academy and try to fix this piece of stuff that the US has become.

More soldiers were killed in Vietnam while leaving because the loving news was saying it was a blodbath where US soldiers killed little babies and some such bullstuff. Now that we're are deep into war in Iraq, if we pulled out way more people would die.

[Ad Bot]

[Qwepir]

forget the costs, if someone is going to kill houndreds of my people, innocent people that never did anything but work for a living, because they dont like Christians, I will go to war against them. War nowadays is mostly controled by needlerichard pencilpushing forgettards that haven't lifted a gun in their lives. How the forget are they going to know what to do??? We need someone more like General loving Patton(died in a car accident after serving in world war 1 and 2) to control the military. Now these bullstuff politics are going to get the people actually willing to fight for our freedom(and the % of people in the US who have served in the armed forces is less than 1% of everyone living in the US) Now I'm not sure about the rest of you guys/girls, but I am not going to sit idly by and wait for our country to be overrun and controlled by limp-richard friends who dont know violence. As soon as I am out of High School(I am a sophomore) I am going to enroll in the military academy and try to fix this piece of stuff that the US has become.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

[Priad]

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Yes I know exactly what I am talking about. The news article is saying that the war will cost too much money-wise and life-wise.

[Thorax]

As long as there is a differance of opinions, there will always be war. Also, to those of you who are completely against the war:

Say you're the President of a country that is supposed to support almost all the lifestyles people could possibly have. A group of radicals are trying to get into your country and kill the citizens you are supposed to be protecting with your authority, just because they hate this country. What are you supposed to do? They don't really have a leader, so you can't kill him/her and end it. They have no "base", so you can't conquer it and end it. You can't change America's lifestyle to please the opposition. You can't really keep them from coming into the country because they could be anyone. So what are you, as an elected leader, supposed to do after an attack on the land you're supposed to be protecting? People are urging you to make a decision to act. But there is nothing you can really act one. The only "foothold" you have is to move troops out so, at the least, you are giving the illusion of action. But then you start to get sucked in. You end up sending more and more troops and supplies because of small foothold you get that you think might be able to end this. But every time, you barely end up profiting from your efforts. By now, it will cost a fortune to pull out from such a predicament.

If you can think of a better plan of action that the president could have made, then tell me.

I am neither for nor against the war, but I do think that we are wasting our money by being lukewarm in this issue.

[Ladios]

As long as someone has something cool and someone else wants it but is unable to bargin for it, there will be war.

[Priad]

As long as there is a differance of opinions, there will always be war.

QFT

[Thorax]

As long as someone has something cool and someone else wants it but is unable to bargin for it, there will be war.

As long as there is a differance of opinions, there will always be war.

MEH! I already said something like that! >:(

[Priad]

As long as there are people, there will be war. Humanity cannot work without conflict.

[Ladios]

In essence, I suppose you are right.
Ones opinion could be "This object belongs to me" and the other person's is "It should belong to me". And as the object only exists once it brings these opinions into conflict. and this creates my statement.
I guess yours is more correct in that it is more general.

As long as there are people, there will be war. Humanity cannot work without conflict.

Conflict != war.

I think this argument is a bit too one sided so I am going to switch my point of view now.

War is not nessicary, and there are always alternatives.
War does not produce anything of value, infact when a bullet is fired it is unlikely to be used again, thus the money that went into that bullet is lost.
War is waste and inefficient, and human evolution is all for efficiency. Thus war is counterproductive to humanity in all aspects.

[Priad]

Conflict =/= war. Conflict is two opposing forces reaching a disagreement(don't think of people...think of water and fire).

[Ladios]

Water doesn't disagree with fire, water prevents the fuel source from recieving oxygen and thus limits the expansion of fire.
Its not like fire is suing water over custody of their pet dog...


Also wtf @

conflict -> war

no

nevermind

At least stand up for your views a bit. This makes it no fun.

[Priad]

Water doesn't disagree with fire, water prevents the fuel source from recieving oxygen and thus limits the expansion of fire.
Its not like fire is suing water over custody of their pet dog...

lol Since water is removing the fuel sources fire can't ignite, therefore causing conflict. You are thinking of them as people or animals(which is wrong) Think about two rocks pushed aginst each other. The point(s) where they meet is conflict.

[Ladios]

The point of which they meet is contact where the forces of friction prevent them from moving. If anything, its the rocks fighting against their internal forces. An internal struggle versus one's destiny I suppose. Quite deep. I had no idea you were such a philosopher.

[Qwepir]

lol Since water is removing the fuel sources fire can't ignite, therefore causing conflict. You are thinking of them as people or animals(which is wrong) Think about two rocks pushed aginst each other. The point(s) where they meet is conflict.

I don't know how that translates to war. Two rocks don't go to war because of an outside force pushing them together.

[Priad]

Not a philospher, just speaking the truth.

I don't know how that translates to war. Two rocks don't go to war because of an outside force pushing them together.

It's not war, it's conflict. thats what I am trying to say. War=/= conflict