i believe that war gave rise to civilisation and advanced technology. if there was no war then people would see no need to advance furthur than they already were. leaders would not be needed and we'd all be primitive. animals don't have wars (not real ones at least), maybe it's because most don't have aposable thumbs. but no wars may be a reason they aren't advancing.

interesting veiws...but what about the balanese? they never had wars, and where the most advanced stone age civilization in the world.

europeans and asians advanced through the ages with constant wars with their neibours. the mongols didn't because they only raided and ambushed. (until Gengis Khan that is).

and how can anyone tell who's the most advanced in the stone age. they didn't record history way back then

"way back when" is the 50's and 60's. yes, they did.

oh well. i don't even know who you're talking about.
i said "then" not "when"
but do you have any thing to go against my last post?

what do you mean?

i mean, do you agree that the reason why the Europeans and Asians advanced was because of their wars with their neibours. and the reason why characters like the mongols didn't was because they only ambushed travelers

i suppose. war crated most civizations, but not all. it also depends as what you mean by civilization.

as long as they are somewhere close to being as advanced as the best then they a civilised. if not then they're barbarians

War created civilzation? Then why do people have guns in their drawers? War has only caused humans to advance in the means of killing and annihilating.

What has war developed to help humanity? Guns you say to defend ourselves? If there were no conflicts or wars, guns wouldn't be needed. Without war, econmics wouldn't be spent to kill, but rather on things humans can use to advance. Faster ways of transportation, space exploration, ways to live longer. Humans don't advance because of war. They advance because of goals, REAL goals. The goal to live longer or explore, search for intelligent life.

Was the car made as a product of war? Was the wheel? Was the chisel? Was the space shuttle? They were made from goals. Medicine was made for the goal to survive, for example.

As for animals not advancing: To me, they're as advanced as they wish. Fur to keep them warm. Claws to hunt for food. Wings for aerial travel. Extreme speeds to get food easily. It's balanced. They have no need to advance. They are "happy". You never know, maybe humans have prevented animals from making any technological or evolutionary advances.

That is my opinion. Remember, it's an opinion only.

i agree whith all the above, but what is being said here (i think) is that war is the spark that sets civilization off.

Goals and wishes can, too. Wars set off corrupt civilizatiopns with only one goal: to kill.

That is my opinion....

that's true, but many civilzations would not have existed whithout war.

mankind is always in competition. if there was no war then there would be no competition. the space shuttle was made in competition, not war. land was need to farm, so they used wars to take the fertile land from others. enemies of greater populations were harder to defeat so they made weapons. people were afraid to be alond in a dangerouse place so they joined others, thus creating cities. some things might not of been created by war

Err...yes,war kinda did forward the evolution of technology,but it isn't really needed right now,is it?

You need a girlfriend LOTET,if you only think in that kind of way.

^^^^^
he's right. war is no longer needed in the west.

State of Nature- the philosophy rearding how humans would act in their most basic state without a civil government. Hobbes believed the state of nature in which man lived before the formation of society was founded on a savage selfishness, which drove man to obtain pleasure without concern for justice or mercy toward other men

State of War- Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, people were always at war with one another, a war of all against all. Each individual was endowed with the right to do anything they pleased and people were in constant fear for their lives.

(Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century philosopher)

As stated above, war is always raging, man against man, family against family. Whether it is on a huge scale or not, war is always on.

War on a large scale, however, has been helpful at times. Was it not worth a war to stop Hitler? Not to mention that WW2 helped America out of the Great Depression. WW1 led to our 19th Amendmant, which gave American women the right to vote.

Still, war is not always worth something. For example, Great Britian owned some islands just off the coast of Argentina. They were worthless islands really, no value to them what-so-ever. Argentina had fought some successful battles against other South American countries, and they thought that they could become recognized as a Super-Power if they took back those islands. So they declared the islands for their own, and so Britian bombed the crap out of the Argentinians and caused 100's of thousands of deaths over nothing but a show of power. Not even Britian's image was improved after this, because it still took a while for them to defeat Argentina, which proved that Britian was not as powerful as they were thought to be

War can solve problem but it is not the best solution.

I agree with Dark Menace(and Hobbes) in a way and with Coddox when he says war doesn't create civilaztion. Over all war is the worst way to solve a problem. Many men and wemon die in these battles over a some menial fact. Fighting over land is the gayest thing. Buying small portions would cost less lives and you wouldn't wipe the country out of existance if you bought small portions. Wars are also fought for resources when all you have to do is open trade with the country that has what you need. All in all most problems can be solved without war, but of coarse there are somes where the most succseful tactic is to start a war.

The Middle East have been killing each other off your decades and are the technologicly advanced? No, they are still all third world countries that have been fighting against each other just because they don't share the same religion. Civilaztion is created by new ideas and thoughts inspired by certain events. The advancement of technology back then was all focused on how to keep yourself safe form attack, because the world was a constant state of war, but thanks to events like the Reinasance, the Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution, mandkind saw that to live a better and longer life, we had to live in peace, order, and strive to become better.

Sadly today, we are still upgrading are weoponry and other crafts of war still today, because if the overnments suddenly decided to wipe out weoponry then people would revolt and war would happen once more. It would be better to gradually restric it like whats happpening with drugs, how they get more expensive every year and with the age limit and laws getting more intense. in the future the government hopes they can end drugs or at least make it minor with all the limitations they put on it, this is what I'd like to see on creating weopons of mass destruction.

Read 1984. There's a very interesting spiel about war in there.

1984? that's during WWII right? What book?

Are you kidding? WWII ended in 1945.

1984 by George Orwell is a book about (sort of) the surveillance state created in Soviet-controlled East Germany. I studied (read: talked about for maybe less than 5 minutes) it in my English class as an example of satire.

The main character is actually in a state ruled by Ingsoc, or English Socialism. It's the bloody Americans who made it, not the Russians.

By about East Germany, I meant it was supposed to parody East Germany (and therefore satirize it).

hey, we haven't gone that war in my history class so the last time I read about WWII was....more than a year ago or two.

@ DM: THATS ALL WRONG!!!!!!


1. they are the falkland islands.

2. there are over 200 of them.

3. they are important for the scientists in antartica.

4. the people there voted to be a UK pratectorate.

5. the RAF was NEVER involved.

6. no more than 70 people died.

7. the argentinians gave them to the british empire.

8. they are still a brittish pratectorate.

9. the war lasted 1 1/2 months.

I think we're talking about a different war. Besides, politcally and economicaly, the islands were worthless. People couldn't live there and be successful in life at all. The British had taken them when they were all just colonies. Way more than 70 people died. For a Super-power, 1 1/2 months is pretty darn pathetic. Duh, the islands are still theirs, Britians won the war

the falkland war: 1982. the last time (until today!) a victoria cros was handed out.

Hmm, I must have heard my uncle incorrectly. Still, quite a few of my points still hold true

was your uncle rambaling?


but your point still stands.

Not at all. Read this, a biography of my uncle

o-0 really?

Really really

o-000000000000000000000000000000000000

amazing.

eh, its understanderble. history is difficult to remember, unless it concerns you.

Yep. I'm lucky in that way. He inspired me to be a politician.

Aye, that it is. BUT I GOT A 100% ON THE WW1 TEST!!! BOOYA!!!
Sorry, had to get that out

me too!

my project pwnd!

Really? As a Republican or Democrat?

world war one? that is what where talking about, isn't it?


about the health, food, and stratergy aspects of it.

Oh, I thought you meant you were planning to be a politician. My bad

The French just plain old sucked when it came to strategizing. Y'know how Germany went through Belgium to invade France in WW1? The French built a wall after the treaty of Verailles with a huge line of defence across the France-Germany border. And, of course, in WW2, Germany went straight through Belgium again, where there was practically no resistance what-so-ever

and the ardennes forrest. the maginot line is nice. i've been there.


(P.S: green party)

The Battle of the Bulge? That was terrible. Most soldiers didn't even know the battle at Ardennes Forest was even happening until the 17th (the battle starting on the 16th of December). I found the casualties for that battle, not including the Malmedy Massacre.