The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the ricent crises over Kashmir I can't help thinking that war is almost a reality.
But Is it all really worth it. War as a whole I mean?
Because I don't think it is.
We certainly don't gain much from war, but there is one thing we may gain and that is our posisition as a country.
In the long run the it's not really worth it.
War in (most cases) is about revenge.
A perfect example is the War On Terror.
Most of the major European contries are taking part in this war.
The two main Participants is the UK and the USA.
The bloke behind thisis none other than G.W.Bush.
He said that the terrorists acts were unjustified. and that justice needed to be served.
Indeed they were unjustified, but I would hardly call Launching a potentially Dangerous All-Out-War on terror justified in itself.
It's all very well punishing the scums that performed the horrific acts on Sept11th, but where does it get us?
not very far.
Sure we'd feel a lot better but it just makes us even more enemies, which ain't very good at all.
But we have gained some valuable allies during the War On Terror.
We have also gained Knowledge of other races and other Terrorist Orginisations which could prove a potential threat.
But I think that the War On Terror was a Good call.
War can be a good thing, if it is used at the right time and if it is not unjustified.
War can Strengthen countries and make them more powerfull.
It can even gain them even more allies.
but it can also be their downfall.
Look at some of the other foreighn countries deeply engrossed in war.
Some of them have been at War For over 30Years.
And that cant be good for the economy.
War has gotten them Nowhere because they don't have the superior tacticall skills and strategies that the SuperPowers Do.
If you are a small poor contry then you can't affors to declare war but if you are one of the better of countries then War (If properly thought out) can be a valuable peice of Millitary action.
So there is some good sides to War but there are also some bad things too.
On the whole the, Is War really worth it?
Well that's for you decide!
But Is it all really worth it. War as a whole I mean?
Because I don't think it is.
We certainly don't gain much from war, but there is one thing we may gain and that is our posisition as a country.
In the long run the it's not really worth it.
War in (most cases) is about revenge.
A perfect example is the War On Terror.
Most of the major European contries are taking part in this war.
The two main Participants is the UK and the USA.
The bloke behind thisis none other than G.W.Bush.
He said that the terrorists acts were unjustified. and that justice needed to be served.
Indeed they were unjustified, but I would hardly call Launching a potentially Dangerous All-Out-War on terror justified in itself.
It's all very well punishing the scums that performed the horrific acts on Sept11th, but where does it get us?
not very far.
Sure we'd feel a lot better but it just makes us even more enemies, which ain't very good at all.
But we have gained some valuable allies during the War On Terror.
We have also gained Knowledge of other races and other Terrorist Orginisations which could prove a potential threat.
But I think that the War On Terror was a Good call.
War can be a good thing, if it is used at the right time and if it is not unjustified.
War can Strengthen countries and make them more powerfull.
It can even gain them even more allies.
but it can also be their downfall.
Look at some of the other foreighn countries deeply engrossed in war.
Some of them have been at War For over 30Years.
And that cant be good for the economy.
War has gotten them Nowhere because they don't have the superior tacticall skills and strategies that the SuperPowers Do.
If you are a small poor contry then you can't affors to declare war but if you are one of the better of countries then War (If properly thought out) can be a valuable peice of Millitary action.
So there is some good sides to War but there are also some bad things too.
On the whole the, Is War really worth it?
Well that's for you decide!
Page:
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Kashmir is just your basic land dispute, except the neighbours from
> hell don't just have pitchforks aimed at each other, they're
> targetting nukes which affects everyone....
> Instead of going to war, killing hundreds of thousands of humans,
> animals, and wasting vast tracts of land so as to put them beyond
> habitation for the next 1000 years, they should toss a coin for it.
Sorry, I joined this debate a bit late...
What about Kashmir being an independant state? Everybody is running around saying it should belong to India, or it should belong to Pakistan, many Kashmiris themselves have the opinion that Kashmir should be independent of either India or Pakistan.
> Kashmir is just your basic land dispute, except the neighbours from
> hell don't just have pitchforks aimed at each other, they're
> targetting nukes which affects everyone....
> Instead of going to war, killing hundreds of thousands of humans,
> animals, and wasting vast tracts of land so as to put them beyond
> habitation for the next 1000 years, they should toss a coin for it.
Sorry, I joined this debate a bit late...
What about Kashmir being an independant state? Everybody is running around saying it should belong to India, or it should belong to Pakistan, many Kashmiris themselves have the opinion that Kashmir should be independent of either India or Pakistan.
It's a great post DM, I'd just like to add a bit of clarity if I may,.......
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> With the ricent crises over Kashmir I can't help thinking that war is
> almost a reality.
>
> But Is it all really worth it. War as a whole I mean?
> Because I don't think it is.
> We certainly don't gain much from war, but there is one thing we may
> gain and that is our posisition as a country.
War is ALWAYS worth it for someone. There is always something to gain from war in the long term, whether economically or territorially, that overrides the major powers concern for human life.
For example, the Gulf War did not happen because Saddam was committing genocide but rather because the West did not want the price of oil to rise. In fact we (and the US) had been supplying Saddam with weapons and materials for years, but as soon as he wanted to jeopardise our oil supply we turned him into a monster.
>
> In the long run the it's not really worth it.
> War in (most cases) is about revenge.
War is hardly ever about revenge(See above)
> A perfect example is the War On Terror.
> Most of the major European contries are taking part in this war.
> The two main Participants is the UK and the USA.
Our economy(and indeed the world economy) is so reliant on the US that if Bush says jump, we jump! Historically, we have been close allies with the US but in fact we are simply repaying favours for American investments and American power maintaining world trade agreements with the rest of the world. Most americans don't even know where Britain is - do you think we really have any say in this conflict? 93% of Americans have never been outside of there own country!!
>
> The bloke behind thisis none other than G.W.Bush.
> He said that the terrorists acts were unjustified. and that justice
> needed to be served.
> Indeed they were unjustified, but I would hardly call Launching a
> potentially Dangerous All-Out-War on terror justified in itself.
> It's all very well punishing the scums that performed the horrific
> acts on Sept11th, but where does it get us?
> not very far.
> Sure we'd feel a lot better but it just makes us even more enemies,
> which ain't very good at all.
Exactly....Also, who are we fighting....are we not belatedly trying to stabilise a problematic Middle East problem that can be traced back to Americas attitide towards the arabic nations in the aftermath of WW2 and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel. And now their Oil is under threat!!!
>
> But we have gained some valuable allies during the War On Terror.
> We have also gained Knowledge of other races and other Terrorist
> Orginisations which could prove a potential threat.
Who exactly are Britains allies? Surely everyone in this war on terror are merely going along with the USA, because they will win and the money we are stealing from the third world can keep rolling in........
>
> But I think that the War On Terror was a Good call.
> War can be a good thing, if it is used at the right time and if it is
> not unjustified.
> War can Strengthen countries and make them more powerfull.
> It can even gain them even more allies.
> but it can also be their downfall.
>
> Look at some of the other foreighn countries deeply engrossed in
> war.
> Some of them have been at War For over 30Years.
> And that cant be good for the economy.
War IS good for the economy. Two nations devastated by WW2?
Germany and Japan......pretty damn good economies now!!!!
War means rebuilding, restructuring, modernisation, full employment etc
> War has gotten them Nowhere because they don't have the superior
> tacticall skills and strategies that the SuperPowers Do.
!!!!!!!!!MONEY!!!!!!!!!
> If you are a small poor contry then you can't affors to declare war
> but if you are one of the better of countries then War (If properly
> thought out) can be a valuable peice of Millitary action.
If your economy is slowing down or confidence in the government is slipping, start a war and solve you problems!!!
>
> So there is some good sides to War but there are also some bad things
> too.
> On the whole the, Is War really worth it?
> Well that's for you decide!
Wars are great for the people in power. Its terrible for the inhabitants of land that are used as pawns in a game of money chess(oops thats a bit Day Today!!)
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> With the ricent crises over Kashmir I can't help thinking that war is
> almost a reality.
>
> But Is it all really worth it. War as a whole I mean?
> Because I don't think it is.
> We certainly don't gain much from war, but there is one thing we may
> gain and that is our posisition as a country.
War is ALWAYS worth it for someone. There is always something to gain from war in the long term, whether economically or territorially, that overrides the major powers concern for human life.
For example, the Gulf War did not happen because Saddam was committing genocide but rather because the West did not want the price of oil to rise. In fact we (and the US) had been supplying Saddam with weapons and materials for years, but as soon as he wanted to jeopardise our oil supply we turned him into a monster.
>
> In the long run the it's not really worth it.
> War in (most cases) is about revenge.
War is hardly ever about revenge(See above)
> A perfect example is the War On Terror.
> Most of the major European contries are taking part in this war.
> The two main Participants is the UK and the USA.
Our economy(and indeed the world economy) is so reliant on the US that if Bush says jump, we jump! Historically, we have been close allies with the US but in fact we are simply repaying favours for American investments and American power maintaining world trade agreements with the rest of the world. Most americans don't even know where Britain is - do you think we really have any say in this conflict? 93% of Americans have never been outside of there own country!!
>
> The bloke behind thisis none other than G.W.Bush.
> He said that the terrorists acts were unjustified. and that justice
> needed to be served.
> Indeed they were unjustified, but I would hardly call Launching a
> potentially Dangerous All-Out-War on terror justified in itself.
> It's all very well punishing the scums that performed the horrific
> acts on Sept11th, but where does it get us?
> not very far.
> Sure we'd feel a lot better but it just makes us even more enemies,
> which ain't very good at all.
Exactly....Also, who are we fighting....are we not belatedly trying to stabilise a problematic Middle East problem that can be traced back to Americas attitide towards the arabic nations in the aftermath of WW2 and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel. And now their Oil is under threat!!!
>
> But we have gained some valuable allies during the War On Terror.
> We have also gained Knowledge of other races and other Terrorist
> Orginisations which could prove a potential threat.
Who exactly are Britains allies? Surely everyone in this war on terror are merely going along with the USA, because they will win and the money we are stealing from the third world can keep rolling in........
>
> But I think that the War On Terror was a Good call.
> War can be a good thing, if it is used at the right time and if it is
> not unjustified.
> War can Strengthen countries and make them more powerfull.
> It can even gain them even more allies.
> but it can also be their downfall.
>
> Look at some of the other foreighn countries deeply engrossed in
> war.
> Some of them have been at War For over 30Years.
> And that cant be good for the economy.
War IS good for the economy. Two nations devastated by WW2?
Germany and Japan......pretty damn good economies now!!!!
War means rebuilding, restructuring, modernisation, full employment etc
> War has gotten them Nowhere because they don't have the superior
> tacticall skills and strategies that the SuperPowers Do.
!!!!!!!!!MONEY!!!!!!!!!
> If you are a small poor contry then you can't affors to declare war
> but if you are one of the better of countries then War (If properly
> thought out) can be a valuable peice of Millitary action.
If your economy is slowing down or confidence in the government is slipping, start a war and solve you problems!!!
>
> So there is some good sides to War but there are also some bad things
> too.
> On the whole the, Is War really worth it?
> Well that's for you decide!
Wars are great for the people in power. Its terrible for the inhabitants of land that are used as pawns in a game of money chess(oops thats a bit Day Today!!)
If America did not start the war on terrisiom, than other terrorists would see America as a soft touch and would try even more threatening things!
I think they did the right thing going into it but i don't think that they should have carried it on and go for the other countrys like Irac.
It could turn out very very very bad.
One more thing....
1-0!!!!!!!!!!
I think they did the right thing going into it but i don't think that they should have carried it on and go for the other countrys like Irac.
It could turn out very very very bad.
One more thing....
1-0!!!!!!!!!!
Absoloutely nothing
War! Huh!.... what is it good for...
...absolutley nothing...
...say it again...
Huh, War! Huh! .... what is it good for
...absolutley nothing...
...say it again...
Huh, War! Huh! .... what is it good for
Yes but all of these weapons i.e Nukes can practically destroy this planet.
Now what would be the point of all these astounding achievments if they used them to destroy eachother.
True it may give countries a lot of influence and strategic gain in war but in the long run it's not worth it!
Nukes would be most usefull if earth was in range of a giant meteor capable of wiping out this planet.
Nukes should only be used as a last resort!
Now what would be the point of all these astounding achievments if they used them to destroy eachother.
True it may give countries a lot of influence and strategic gain in war but in the long run it's not worth it!
Nukes would be most usefull if earth was in range of a giant meteor capable of wiping out this planet.
Nukes should only be used as a last resort!
Doughnut Monster wrote:
> Remember about 20 years ago,
> The Americans were very suspisious of the Russians and the russians
> were very suspisious of the Americans.
> And look where it got them,
> Nowhere.
Incredible advancements in nuclear and chemical weapons, jet fighter design, intelligence and counter-intelligence, weapon telemetry, targetting and control along with dozens of other military gains for both sides. I'd say their paranoia served them well.
> Remember about 20 years ago,
> The Americans were very suspisious of the Russians and the russians
> were very suspisious of the Americans.
> And look where it got them,
> Nowhere.
Incredible advancements in nuclear and chemical weapons, jet fighter design, intelligence and counter-intelligence, weapon telemetry, targetting and control along with dozens of other military gains for both sides. I'd say their paranoia served them well.
Sibs wrote:
> Much as I hate to admit it Insane Bartender you do have a point. But
> you speak as if we have no choice in the matter. Maybe war does drive
> the evolution of technology, but would you be willing to die for
> technology? I don't mean die for technology to benefit the world, I
> mean die to further technology used to kill, and inflict pain. Because
> while war drives man to create better technology in all aspects of
> life the technology that is enhanced most because of war is the war
> technology itself. Weapons, tactics, vehicles.
War is essential, in that it doesn't just produce aggressive machinery and technology, but also preventative, and curing technologies. Medicine would be far less advanced if we didn't have to be paranoid about what we can do to eachother.
>
> And you say we would not have various things if we did not have war.
> Why not? War does drive technology, but it also holds it back. How
> much quicker would technology advance if countries worked together,
> rather than being hostile, suspicious and hateful of each other, and
> so making sure information and technology isn't leaked out to another
> country. How much quicker would mankind have landed on the moon if
> Russia and the USA had been working together, sharing knowledge and
> expertise, rather than spying on one another?
War gives us the motivation we need - a requirement to get the technology available before anyone else can make your work redundant. Working together will work, but only to a point. A few decades into world peace will see the end of the technological revolution we are seeing, and ultimately, the stagnation of technology.
> And destruction being the catalyst for creation... maybe so. But
> nowadays when something is destroyed it may not be rebuilt at all, at
> least not if it isn't financially viable. Nowadays effeciency
> constantly being improved, and that is why many of the advancements we
> see are being made. Companies want greater efficiency for greater
> profits. Therefore technology must be advanced.
Profiteering is just war, albeit in a different arena, and for different goals, with different weapons. Companies don't want profit for the sake of profit, they want profit to COMPETE, and this is essential if a market for new technologies is to be maintained. However, companies cannot derive profits from more advanced uses of technologies (at present) such as space research and exploration, and so will never research and develop technologies to exploit the void. However, military forces DO have advantages to be taken from such researches, and will invest, for the purpose of being there before anyone else, and hence taking the essential new frontier territory.
> And 'we' is a very broad term. I don't want to go fight a war. I'd
> much rather live without the threat of nucleur weapons hanging over my
> head.
Humans are essentially a hive species, everyone has a role, and so we aren't all in the armed forces. But as a species, we will always be at each others throats.
> If History is there for anything isn't it to learn from past
> mistakes...? War is not inevitable. I don't believe in a God, but if
> we were designed by some omnipotent deity, what are we? The Deity's
> amusement? It can watch as we compete for power on an insignificant
> rock floating around space.
History is of course considered in all things. But those with the power to do so use history to teach them how to win the next war, rather than avoid it. Again, this is what drives technology. We see what has gone before, and we avoid what went wrong, and strengthen what went right.
> War is not our fate. War is not inevitable. But it will be if we
> continue to belive it is.
The human race has been denying it for probably centuries now. If it weren't inevitable, surely peace would have come about? It has not, and for the forseeable future, it will not.
In the end, the problem is a mental one. We think, therefore we are. If we can think, we can believe, and so long as we believe, our thoughts are tainted by bias, and that will always lead us to mistrust, and mistrust will lead to confrontation.
Thanks for the reply.
> Much as I hate to admit it Insane Bartender you do have a point. But
> you speak as if we have no choice in the matter. Maybe war does drive
> the evolution of technology, but would you be willing to die for
> technology? I don't mean die for technology to benefit the world, I
> mean die to further technology used to kill, and inflict pain. Because
> while war drives man to create better technology in all aspects of
> life the technology that is enhanced most because of war is the war
> technology itself. Weapons, tactics, vehicles.
War is essential, in that it doesn't just produce aggressive machinery and technology, but also preventative, and curing technologies. Medicine would be far less advanced if we didn't have to be paranoid about what we can do to eachother.
>
> And you say we would not have various things if we did not have war.
> Why not? War does drive technology, but it also holds it back. How
> much quicker would technology advance if countries worked together,
> rather than being hostile, suspicious and hateful of each other, and
> so making sure information and technology isn't leaked out to another
> country. How much quicker would mankind have landed on the moon if
> Russia and the USA had been working together, sharing knowledge and
> expertise, rather than spying on one another?
War gives us the motivation we need - a requirement to get the technology available before anyone else can make your work redundant. Working together will work, but only to a point. A few decades into world peace will see the end of the technological revolution we are seeing, and ultimately, the stagnation of technology.
> And destruction being the catalyst for creation... maybe so. But
> nowadays when something is destroyed it may not be rebuilt at all, at
> least not if it isn't financially viable. Nowadays effeciency
> constantly being improved, and that is why many of the advancements we
> see are being made. Companies want greater efficiency for greater
> profits. Therefore technology must be advanced.
Profiteering is just war, albeit in a different arena, and for different goals, with different weapons. Companies don't want profit for the sake of profit, they want profit to COMPETE, and this is essential if a market for new technologies is to be maintained. However, companies cannot derive profits from more advanced uses of technologies (at present) such as space research and exploration, and so will never research and develop technologies to exploit the void. However, military forces DO have advantages to be taken from such researches, and will invest, for the purpose of being there before anyone else, and hence taking the essential new frontier territory.
> And 'we' is a very broad term. I don't want to go fight a war. I'd
> much rather live without the threat of nucleur weapons hanging over my
> head.
Humans are essentially a hive species, everyone has a role, and so we aren't all in the armed forces. But as a species, we will always be at each others throats.
> If History is there for anything isn't it to learn from past
> mistakes...? War is not inevitable. I don't believe in a God, but if
> we were designed by some omnipotent deity, what are we? The Deity's
> amusement? It can watch as we compete for power on an insignificant
> rock floating around space.
History is of course considered in all things. But those with the power to do so use history to teach them how to win the next war, rather than avoid it. Again, this is what drives technology. We see what has gone before, and we avoid what went wrong, and strengthen what went right.
> War is not our fate. War is not inevitable. But it will be if we
> continue to belive it is.
The human race has been denying it for probably centuries now. If it weren't inevitable, surely peace would have come about? It has not, and for the forseeable future, it will not.
In the end, the problem is a mental one. We think, therefore we are. If we can think, we can believe, and so long as we believe, our thoughts are tainted by bias, and that will always lead us to mistrust, and mistrust will lead to confrontation.
Thanks for the reply.
Here's the latest from the crisis.
Israeli forces have swept into the Palestinian city of Ramallah, triggering heavy firefights with Palestinian gunmen.
More than two dozen tanks and troops rolled into the centre of the city for the second time in four days, Palestinian witnesses said.
This operation... is to search for wanted terrorists and to find explosive labs
Israeli army
One Palestinian was shot dead after soldiers entered the adjoining Amari refugee camp, according to Palestinian sources, while troops also took control of the suburb of Beituniyah and the neighbouring town of El-Bireh.
The raids came as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon prepared for talks with US President George W Bush in Washington.
Israel said the army had arrested seven suspected militants in Ramallah and that troops would stay in the city for a "limited time".
Earlier, at least 30 Palestinians were injured in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, in a blast apparently caused by a landmine which exploded in a house.
Suspects sought
The Israeli army said it went into Ramallah "to search for wanted terrorists and to find explosive labs".
Palestinian witnesses reported loud explosions as tanks backed by Apache helicopters poured into the city from the north at 0330 local time (0030 GMT), followed by troops from the east and south.
As forces took up positions in the city, soldiers moved from house to house in the Amari camp, witnesses said.
Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said troops had bulldozed parts of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound, while Israel said soldiers were only surrounding the complex to prevent gunmen from seeking refuge there.
Palestinian officials said Mr Arafat was inside his headquarters and unharmed.
On Thursday, Israeli forces raided the compound after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in northern Israel, killing 17 passengers.
Troops destroyed three buildings and killed one of Mr Arafat's bodyguards before they withdrew after six hours.
And there was the Pakistani Leader saying the other day that the threat of war was minimal.
It sure don't look like it to me!
Israeli forces have swept into the Palestinian city of Ramallah, triggering heavy firefights with Palestinian gunmen.
More than two dozen tanks and troops rolled into the centre of the city for the second time in four days, Palestinian witnesses said.
This operation... is to search for wanted terrorists and to find explosive labs
Israeli army
One Palestinian was shot dead after soldiers entered the adjoining Amari refugee camp, according to Palestinian sources, while troops also took control of the suburb of Beituniyah and the neighbouring town of El-Bireh.
The raids came as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon prepared for talks with US President George W Bush in Washington.
Israel said the army had arrested seven suspected militants in Ramallah and that troops would stay in the city for a "limited time".
Earlier, at least 30 Palestinians were injured in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, in a blast apparently caused by a landmine which exploded in a house.
Suspects sought
The Israeli army said it went into Ramallah "to search for wanted terrorists and to find explosive labs".
Palestinian witnesses reported loud explosions as tanks backed by Apache helicopters poured into the city from the north at 0330 local time (0030 GMT), followed by troops from the east and south.
As forces took up positions in the city, soldiers moved from house to house in the Amari camp, witnesses said.
Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said troops had bulldozed parts of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound, while Israel said soldiers were only surrounding the complex to prevent gunmen from seeking refuge there.
Palestinian officials said Mr Arafat was inside his headquarters and unharmed.
On Thursday, Israeli forces raided the compound after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus in northern Israel, killing 17 passengers.
Troops destroyed three buildings and killed one of Mr Arafat's bodyguards before they withdrew after six hours.
And there was the Pakistani Leader saying the other day that the threat of war was minimal.
It sure don't look like it to me!
Sibs wrote:
> Doughnut Monster wrote:
> Too many countries are suspicous of eachother.
>
> Remember about 20 years ago,
> The Americans were very suspisious of the Russians and the russians
> were very suspisious of the Americans.
> And look where it got them,
> Nowhere.
>
> You refer to the Cold War I believe. and if anything the world SHOULD
> have got a lot better... USA and Russia were suspiscious mainly
> because of their vastly different ideologies- capitalism, and
> communism. Now there are no major powers that are communist. But
> countries are still suspiscious.
Countries will always be suspicious of one another!
> Doughnut Monster wrote:
> Too many countries are suspicous of eachother.
>
> Remember about 20 years ago,
> The Americans were very suspisious of the Russians and the russians
> were very suspisious of the Americans.
> And look where it got them,
> Nowhere.
>
> You refer to the Cold War I believe. and if anything the world SHOULD
> have got a lot better... USA and Russia were suspiscious mainly
> because of their vastly different ideologies- capitalism, and
> communism. Now there are no major powers that are communist. But
> countries are still suspiscious.
Countries will always be suspicious of one another!
Page: