Gazillion Wars

¨But you know what I sometimes think? I think the world may be going through a phase, the way I was with Mother. It´ll pass, maybe not for hundreds of years, but some day . . . I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are really good at heart.¨ (Frank 510) For as long as humans have been alive there was conflict and for a while that was resolved with violence and that has created many great inventions and awful ones too but, humans were killing each other and we can't grow if we don't work together. That was the way to deal with conflict for a while but now we are starting to deal with conflict in more humane ways, at least some of us, but there still are wars and they still are awful. The worst battle in humankind was D-Day which

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

When you are born into a world in which the two biggest religions on the globe are fighting the same battle they have been fighting for a thousand years you start to question the belifs of these two religions. If they both preach peace, why do we get war? I wonder what Jesus or Muhammad would say if they were alive today. Christanity, Islam, and Judaism are three of the most closely related religions in the world because they all see Abraham and other patriarcal figures in the bible as their spirtual ansestors. However, their points of similarity are no guarentee the followers will get along. In fact, most of the religiously motivated conflicts are between Muslims and Christans. All religions have

Religions differing has caused many conflicts throughout history. “The feeling of attachment to tribalism and fake patriotism under the umbrella of religion is stronger and more apparent than respect for human rights and pluralism” (Mhamed 2). When people are tied so greatly to their religion, they will be willing to throw away their morals and do whatever they deem is right for their beliefs, leading to constant wars. “different tribal and so-called patriotic groups resort to religion to gain legacy and popularity” (Mhamad 2). Religion is even just a way to unite people to war such as saying they are doing something in the name of their deity

Throughout history, war has always been described as an atrocity and an unnecessary reason for the loss of life. This is not the case. War is necessary for the survival of the economy, the sustainability of non-renewable resources, and the progression of inventions.

Fighting has been a part of the human race since we first came along. War started once there were organized groups that were going against another organized group. We have come a long way since the first development of firearms. The technology that we have today helps secure our victory in any battlefield around the world compared to the previous wars.

Every person who participates in a religion of their own will, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or other, believes it to be ‘the truth’. Christians and Muslims, Muslims and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, atheists and theists have almost always been in conflict. In light of these realities, is a long-term, peaceful, pluralistic society possible? Religion aside, is it possible for people who are not united under one belief to coexist peacefully in the long run? Are not all wars a result of conflicting beliefs? USA and Canada have many different coexisting religions, yet there was segregation and slavery in the US, as well as assassinations and wars in both countries.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

It is within human nature for war to be risen towards society. Our human evolution in one way or another essentially needs to have different views, this is because conflict is an inevitable component in not just human life but in any life. “The furious passions of men, modified as they are by moral instructions, still operate with much force; and by a perpetual fallacy, even with the conscientious in each contending nation think we may join in war, because they each believe they are repelling an aggressor” (Source D). It is necessary

This is a much scarier concept to think about then it sounds. War, will not always have a winner but it will have someone or some nation that will come out on top. They will have the control of how things appeared to play out. We hope that the group that is right wins, but how can we be sure they are right? As explored earlier a country with better resources and a more stable economy has the upperhand. But just because a nation has more money does not mean they are on the right side of the war. According to Moseley “At a deeper level, one can consider the role that civilians play in supporting an unjust war: to what extent are they morally culpable, and if they are culpable in giving moral, financial, or economic support to some extent, does that mean they may become legitimate targets?” (Moseley 2005). The difficulty of using war to solve a problem is that the legitimacy of a target is determined by the ones who do the act, it is very hard to create a way of determining the justification for killing that all parties will agree upon. Even if there is a line that fits it can always be argued against one way or another. There can never be a correct answer to killing because it can be argued in either direction. Humans pride themselves on certainty, and creating solutions. War cannot solve a problem with any sort of certainty because it ultimately will come down to the interpretation of the individual and people will argue against the outcome no matter what. This is where diplomacy must always be the first choice. (Will keep working but want to make sure all points are

Battles, War, bloodshed etc.. would all not happen if there wasn’t conflict. Conflict can happen for multiple reasons like establishing dominance, resources and desire to have more power but what really starts a war is when there is ethnic conflict. People believe in their cause to protect or defend their culture which is who they are and likely most people they know. My personal ancestry has suffered from this and endured through the holocaust. “From Two Worlds As a Keepsake”, also known as “Yerku Ashkharhic I Hishatak”, shows this ethnic conflict in a visual masterpiece.

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

In the book Our Kind Dr. Harris mentions the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. He went to great details about our closest living relative the chimpanzees, and how their survival was base on they will to fight. Therefore, our willingness to fight wars and kill each other for nonsense reasons is simply our nature.

The basis of all of these wars was religious disparity, so one would expect their beliefs to be far removed from one another. However, with the exception of a few, most of these religions have deep similarities in their principles. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all monotheistic religions, that is, they believe there is only one God. He is the foundation of all that exists; He is merciful and had endowed us with a set of rules for our guidance so that we are all noble and virtuous. These three religions deem that humans are the most supreme creatures on earth and that we are capable of both good and evil. When we extend our righteousness, we are doing what God intended; when we exploit our freedom and hurt others, we are going against the will of God. With God’s help, every being is able to turn away from evil and lead a worthy life. Moreover, these religions are also hopeful about the future. They believe in the

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s