No more war, no more hate.

Meltdown99 said: I wish every parent would discourage their children from joining the military.

I 100% agree.

PS: History is written by the victors. Please always remember that, when you try to draw objective conclusions from historical sources.

PS1: Protesting is never a fruitless act. It may seem like a dead end at the end of the day, but is much more than that. With every protest, we come one step closer to actually achieve something. That's how we won (at the first place) and are still enjoying (today) some basic human rights. And if you're still in disbelief, their fear says it all. In every demonstration, they employ all kind of armed forces to stop people's power, but to no avail. And why's that? Because they're afraid of what we can collectively achieve. They're also scared of the collective resistance to their plans.

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

What I don't understand about arguing for why war is Ok is this, Wouldn't it make more sense to take that energy and time and apply it to finding a means for peace? 

How do you find peace when your country is being invaded and your people killed? 
Should the countries Hitler invaded just asked for peace while their people were being sent to death camps? Japan murdered millions of Chinese at the same time, should China just ask for peace?
Sometimes all the energy and resources in the world won't be enough for peace.
I just think not believing in war is like telling your kid to never stuck up for himself or join a fight.
When my kid is a few years older I want him to know to never seek out a fight, but 100% I will support him if a fight results in him defending himself. Sometimes you have no choice but to join a fight when you;re not the one who starts it. Running away is not always an option.

Our country hasn't been invaded- only Hawaii which we stole and committed genocide to.

See my previous post/ linked article about how we aided Hitler into coming into power.

" Running away is not always an option." Who said we should run away?   In nature there are two option: fight or flight.  Humans have another choice: use our brains and seek other means.  We do have that capacity.

Hawaiian genocide?  That s a new one to me. Don’t forget that three islands in the aleutian chain were also invaded by the Japanese.

i_lov_it said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

What I don't understand about arguing for why war is Ok is this, Wouldn't it make more sense to take that energy and time and apply it to finding a means for peace? 

How do you find peace when your country is being invaded and your people killed? 
Should the countries Hitler invaded just asked for peace while their people were being sent to death camps? Japan murdered millions of Chinese at the same time, should China just ask for peace?
Sometimes all the energy and resources in the world won't be enough for peace.
I just think not believing in war is like telling your kid to never stuck up for himself or join a fight.
When my kid is a few years older I want him to know to never seek out a fight, but 100% I will support him if a fight results in him defending himself. Sometimes you have no choice but to join a fight when you;re not the one who starts it. Running away is not always an option.

What fight???...that some Psychopath has decided for you?

Many, most, maybe even all were started by psychopaths. Think of all the millions who died for no reason on than just so we’d know the name Alexander the Great thousands of years later. 
But when those armies came martching in and you knew the women would be raped and children put into slavery, would you be a psychopath to defend yourself?

mace1229 said: Many, most, maybe even all were started by psychopaths. Think of all the millions who died for no reason on than just so we’d know the name Alexander the Great thousands of years later. 

But when those armies came marching in and you knew the women would be raped and children put into slavery, would you be a psychopath to defend yourself?

As a Greek (Macedonian), I have to reply to this totally weak comment. Your description of the atrocities is true, as in every war. But one has to admit that during his imperialistic endeavours Alexander the Great respected the cultures of the places he conquered. By that, I mean that his army didn't destroy important ancient sites (symbols of entire civilisations or even sacred places such as temples) or eliminate religions. And there are strong historical evidence regarding the attitude of his army. Security guards of museums or archaeological sites around the region of, for example, Afghanistan show their respect and admiration whenever a visitor presenting them with a Greek passport or ID. I believe that's something. With that being said, war crimes are war crimes, no matter their origins. But we have to put the conversation into a context, and stop treating all historical moments (wars) the same.

Pap said:

mace1229 said: Many, most, maybe even all were started by psychopaths. Think of all the millions who died for no reason on than just so we’d know the name Alexander the Great thousands of years later. 

But when those armies came marching in and you knew the women would be raped and children put into slavery, would you be a psychopath to defend yourself?

As a Greek (Macedonian), I have to reply to this totally weak comment. Your description of the atrocities is true, as in every war. But one has to admit that during his imperialistic endeavours Alexander the Great respected the cultures of the places he conquered. By that, I mean that his army didn't destroy important ancient sites (symbols of entire civilisations or even sacred places such as temples) or eliminate religions. And there are strong historical evidence regarding the attitude of his army. Security guards of museums or archaeological sites around the region of, for example, Afghanistan show their respect and admiration whenever a visitor presenting them with a Greek passport or ID. I believe that's something. With that being said, war crimes are war crimes, no matter their origins. But we have to put the conversation into a context, and stop treating all historical moments (wars) the same.

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but what was your point? I'm confused because you start by referring to my comment as a weak argument, then follow it by saying everything I said was true. Yes, Alexander treated his "enemies" better than most did, and allowed many of then to continue to govern themselves. That doesn't change my point of view on his endless war effort though.
I was not trying to single out Macedonia, just pointing out many of the leaders, from ancient times until now, Alexander, Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, all allowed millions to die just so people would know their name. That is pyschopathic to me, it doesn't when it happened. 

mace1229 said:

I'm not trying to sound condescending, but what was your point?

My point is summed up at the last sentence. All I'm trying to say is to examine each historical moment separately and avoid generalisations. For instance, it wouldn't be historically accurate to put the word enemies in quotation mark as if they were all part of Alexander the Great's imagination, because we weren't there to experience firsthand the attitude of the neighbours of his kingdom.