Is war fundamentally wrong? (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

Na. Everyone knew that Germany was cooked by 43. They lost the oil and were outnumbered usually 10:1. It was just a consistent rolling back of eastern land after Stalingrad.
If ww2 was brought to us by the creators of the first film, ww1, then Stalingrad would've been armistice time.
US bombing was important, but the Brits could've pulled this off. Their main role here was propping up Brit with supplies.

 

[Korn]

Clearly you lack even the most basic knowledge of WWI (or WII for that matter) that all Modern History students have. Stop referring to events that you have little or no knowledge of, it's embarrassing.

Hang on I was right about the prince dude, so what are you going on about

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/lesson1.html
http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyC1.html
http://ci.columbia.edu/ci/eseminars/0740_detail.html
http://www.britannica.com/search?ct=ebi&query=Causes+of+World+War+I

 

[Benny_]

No you weren't. There was no Prince assassinated.

 

[Korn]

No you weren't. There was no Prince assassinated.

Prince, duke same thing

 

[Benny_]

Yes, but there's also the fact that Franz Ferdinand's assassination was also just a spark for a powerkeg.. your assertion that WWI happened because one guy got assassinated is rather simplistic.. and wrong. I can't really be bothered explaining it all to you though, seeing as this is getting rather off topic.

 

[Korn]

Yes, but there's also the fact that Franz Ferdinand's assassination was also just a spark for a powerkeg.. your assertion that WWI happened because one guy got assassinated is rather simplistic.. and wrong. I can't really be bothered explaining it all to you though, seeing as this is getting rather off topic.

Yes but it was the spark that kicked it off, i was using a simplistic exlaination not going into the historical, cultural, political, economic climates

 

[Generator]

Yes but it was the spark that kicked it off, i was using a simplistic exlaination not going into the historical, cultural, political, economic climates

Sorry, Korn, but that particular line was not 'simplistic' as it was in no way meaningful given the complexity of the situation. In the future, try and take the time to provide a simple yet meaningful explanation/response if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - Mao Tse-Tung

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - Mao Tse-Tung

Very clever quote.

 

[Korn]

Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - Mao Tse-Tung

Yeah ild agree with that

 

[Dr_Gorgeous]

War is a horrible way to resolve conflict, people's lives are lost, homes and countries are destroyed... But if one is fighting for their homes, freedom, families, religion, etc, then to me that is the only accceptable reason to go to war, but then again, if everybody did that, would there be any war?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

err...... I'd say 90% of wars going on around the world have to do with homes, freedom, family, religion.

 

[Dr_Gorgeous]

I'd say about 67.5% of them are caused by terrorism and rebellion, look at where the hotspots are - Iraq/middle east, Israel, africa, west bank and Gaza strip, etc...
Oh well, the world's going to end up going to war in the future against each other, and then we'll eventually destroy ourselves with nuclear warfare...

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'd say that war is wrong in that there *should* always be a better solution. Unfortunately however, this isn't the way the world works, and isn't ever likely to be.

To clarify, I don't agree with it, but I can see that this is the way it's going to keep going until people learn not to be such dickheads to each other (Never).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'd say that war is wrong in that there *should* always be a better solution. Unfortunately however, this isn't the way the world works, and isn't ever likely to be.

To clarify, I don't agree with it, but I can see that this is the way it's going to keep going until people learn not to be such dickheads to each other (Never).

You people really make it sound so simple...
"love one another"...

Like... it's not like it's that simple, the arab-isreali conflict isn't something that you can just say "God! stop being so stupid!"

 

[Korn]

You people really make it sound so simple...
"love one another"...

Like... it's not like it's that simple, the arab-isreali conflict isn't something that you can just say "God! stop being so stupid!"

I think he knows that

 

[Generator]

You people really make it sound so simple...
"love one another"...

Like... it's not like it's that simple, the arab-isreali conflict isn't something that you can just say "God! stop being so stupid!"

I can see your point, but I think that you are going overboard. From my own reading, ogmzergrush did not suggest that such conflicts can be solved in such a simple manner or that we should 'love one another'. 'You people' is hardly a term that furthers your argument, too.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I wasn't specifically referring to ogmzergrush, "you people" was in reference to the people who have said comments along the lines of "why can't we all just get along?", however i know i did quote him which was probably just a mistake.

Saying something like "this is the way it's going to be untill people stop being dickheads to one another", simplifies it to a point where he is claiming that wars are fought out of stupidity and that if we could just get "smarter" we'd stop having wars.

 

[Korn]

I wasn't specifically referring to ogmzergrush, "you people" was in reference to the people who have said comments along the lines of "why can't we all just get along?", however i know i did quote him which was probably just a mistake.

Saying something like "this is the way it's going to be untill people stop being dickheads to one another", simplifies it to a point where he is claiming that wars are fought out of stupidity and that if we could just get "smarter" we'd stop having wars.

It was obvious that u meant more then one person im not sure if generator misinterpreted that or if u didnt understand what gene' said, cause i didnt read it as saying that u were only refering to ohmzergrush

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It sounded like he thought my "you people" comment was refering to some ideological binary opposition.