Fascination with war?

[Nationalist_Cause]

I figured I'd post this in the mudpit since it will inevitably lead to various political debates.

Lately I've noticed that many people on these boards are fascinated by the idea of war and the destruction it causes, cheering on one side or another in current or past conflicts and celebrating their bloodshed. I understand that this is a forum based on games dealing with "Total War" but that is what they are, games.

War is not a game. Real people are dying the world over in conflicts of different origins. For the life of me, I can't understand the chest pounding and drum beating of some on these boards. That America, my native country that I love, has the ability to turn any opponent into dust is not something I am proud of. Am I thankful for the ability of my country to defend itself adequately? Of course. But that is a far cry from demanding, celebrating, welcoming, and accepting war as the first and final tool of diplomacy in all obstacles of international relations.

Perhaps I am just stating the obvious and wasting my time on this piece. But I am hoping that everyone will stop and think the next time they are arguing a point on these boards. Whether the War on Terror, Iraq, Lebanon, or Israel is right or wrong, we should all be cognizant that real people are suffering. Casualty statistics should not be used as cheap ploys to gain points in a debate.

Anyhow, I'm just rambling and can't seem to fully express in words what my mind is thinking.

[Last Roman]

I don't understand it either. I believe in the need of a strong military (as a deterent more than anything else). Just because we have the ability to blow **** up, doesn't mean we need to.

[IamthePope]

I don't understand it either. I believe in the need of a strong military (as a deterent more than anything else). Just because we have the ability to blow **** up, doesn't mean we need to.

Like Patton said "compared to War, all other human pursuits pale in comparison". I believe the fascination with war derives simultaneously from both the drama and the horror of the experience. Great nations are made and destroyed in the pursuit of warfare. History itself its decided on the field of battle. What could be more intriguing than an event that forever afterwards alters our world in an unforeseeable and unpredictable way.

[SoggyFrog]

Or neither; such as with Christian morals in some cases. Adultery for example; why is that wrong? Or paedophilia? Or according to some, homosexuality?

Got to thinking about that, and those can be connected to the idea of survival. We may have different ideas about how real that connection is, but with respect to adultery and homosexuality, those do challenge their idea of a family unit. That family unit can understandably seen as a part of survival. Not only that, the assertion of that family concept is another part in survival. As for pedophilia, we see that very strongly as the abuse and exploitation of children, which is weakening to their ability to develop socially. On the other hand, relationships among youth are seen as far more innocent and 'cute'.

Exactly. But many people have that part of their morality as absolute; such that they believe it would always be wrong to steal or kill. This is, according to you, not moral.

Yes, one's perceptions may indicate that it is better to suffer than to perpetuate violence. Disparity of perception means disparity in the interpretation of what is moral and what leads to survival.

So much debate is. From a universal perspective if we found the truth we'd be so depressed and insignificant we'd suicide.

I was more trying to illustrate how with the knowledge of the entire universe, we would know everything about how our morals can lead us to the end, and that would give us our truest morals. On the opposite end there would be a very tiny perception and that would give us falser morals. It's not about our role in the universe.

[BambooKing]

Fascination with war is not as deep as any have suggested.

Animals are creatures of necessity, and wherever we see the need to strike out in the name of self-preservation, is where we will direct our ferocious natures. Violence is a very real part of the natural world, not that it is inevitable, but that it is required. Not for some great mythos of population control, but for the pure need to conquer; little else. To master the things you see.

More land, more money, more babies. Even if it is unnecessary, old habits die hard.

All humans universally understand two things; anger and fear. There are people who do not love, but everyone rages.

Everyone fears.

[Professor420]

The problem is, no one that you accuse of advocating war (who has the least thread of maturity, at least), is going to admit to desiring war, or liking it, or in support of it. They will call it an inevitability and a reality. They will say 'we have to fight and kill because otherwise the enemy will do that to us.' 'Our wars are only in self defense.' 'We fight for the greater good.' A whole host of reasons, anything to dispel the guilt they should feel for advocating war under ANY condition.

[War Bringer]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else. I used to be facinated with war when I was younger, however it has grown into so much more now. I view not as the first and final tool of diplomacy, but as the final and extreme essence of human nature. The will and desire to destroy another human life is within us all. Instead of being ashamed, and hiding from that which is within me and everyone else, I have both accepted and embraced the nature of war.

[Last Roman]

The will and desire to destroy another human life is within us all. Instead of being ashamed, and hiding from that which is within me and everyone else, I have both accepted and embraced the nature of war.

just because of it is part of our nature to be violent doesn't mean we should. That's like saying because I want to **** every hot girl I see, I should go ahead and do it.

[War Bringer]

just because of it is part of our nature to be violent doesn't mean we should. That's like saying because I want to **** every hot girl I see, I should go ahead and do it.

Well the average male doesn't **** every girl he sees. But it isn't for lack of trying. Violence is not just a part of human nature, it happens to be a very dominant one.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Lately I've noticed that many people on these boards are fascinated by the idea of war and the destruction it causes, cheering on one side or another in current or past conflicts and celebrating their bloodshed. I understand that this is a forum based on games dealing with "Total War" but that is what they are, games.

And those that play them have a mentality that I would think tend to be facinated by war.

War is not a game. Real people are dying the world over in conflicts of different origins

But weve managed to make it so unpersonal now . Its like a video game unless your a grunt. By the way have you noticed the glut of grunt rpgs out there? Our kids are all in training.

Im afrain warbringer is right

Violence is not just a part of human nature, it happens to be a very dominant one.

[Last Roman]

W Violence is not just a part of human nature, it happens to be a very dominant one.

so is sexuality. In fact, I'd say that is one of the strongest parts of human nature. But thats for another topic

Anyway, if we give in to our most primal nature, then we are little more than animals. Nature is not an excuse to kill thousands or millions of people

[Maron]

so is sexuality. In fact, I'd say that is one of the strongest parts of human nature. But thats for another topic

Anyway, if we give in to our most primal nature, then we are little more than animals

well if you look around the forums there seems to be a "fascination" with sexuality also (see babes thread, hunks thread, and to some extent, say cheese thread)
...you arent complaining about that.

what is wrong with being fascinated with war?

[carl-the-conqueror]

so is sexuality. In fact, I'd say that is one of the strongest parts of human nature. But thats for another topic

Anyway, if we give in to our most primal nature, then we are little more than animals. Nature is not an excuse to kill thousands or millions of people

people seem to forget that we are actually animals (part of the greater apes).

[MaximiIian]

Anyway, if we give in to our most primal nature, then we are little more than animals.

We are animals. Our intelligence only accents, not dissipates, our species' natural violence.

[Narakir]

I see destruction and war as something natural, human are just thinking beast and as still they'll remain at this state they'll desire things and be ready to kill for it... that's sad but real. And for the fascination, I think it comes more from the "theatral" way many people see or want to see the war with heroes killing a lot of ennemies alone to prove thier superiority, the feeling of freedom by killing ect... war is just the sum of many phantasms of the humankind and it's stupidity. I admit it but I know I like it too.

[Katrina]

Well, it is quite true that a lot of kiddos on this site probably get there more forceful feelings for these wars from their intrests, but really, war is human. Many of the potential war tactics, situations and attacks that are discussed here are based around the idea that they may be the only way, in this day and age to resolve the conflict, along with the idea that is perhaps the most sufficiant way to gain and compete to be superior, a well enjoyed trait amongst men, and while we are at it, we may as well complete to defeat. It is in our instinct.

[gigagaia]

I view not as the first and final tool of diplomacy, but as the final and extreme essence of human nature.

Human Nature?

war

noun 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups.
2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/warx?view=uk

Now, given that the context of the thread is #1, and we are all talking about War between nations, I think it is safe to exclude #2 from our definitions.

So, let me get this clear now.

Nations and states and armed conflicts.
Human Nature.

How can something that requires and necessitates social constructions be a part of our nature, ie. something that is natural to us?
Unless you mean competition/conflict, but that isn't war and can take non-violent means

The will and desire to destroy another human life is within us all.

So why does this make it right? Why are the suffering, chaos, pain and tragedies somehow swept under the moral carpet by this sweeping statement?

Instead of being ashamed, and hiding from that which is within me and everyone else, I have both accepted and embraced the nature of war.

Well, what is the nature of war?

[War Bringer]

Well, what is the nature of war?

One
Two
Three
Four

This is the nature of war, this is within all of us. Tell me why it is a bad thing, not basing any arguments on morals or any opinion of right and wrong.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Tell me why it is a bad thing, not basing any arguments on morals or any opinion of right and wrong.

In fact it could be argued (and I have) That war is the greatest stimulus to the advancement of man.

[gigagaia]

One
Two
Three
Four

This is the nature of war, this is within all of us. Tell me why it is a bad thing, not basing any arguments on morals or any opinion of right and wrong.

Um, is that supposed to be a "clever" trick question?

You cannot consider something about human existence without considering the moral. I challenge you to tell me why it is right, without arguments of morality.
Simply being "natural" is rubbish, as I think unless you can prove to me that war is not a social construction that is a consequence of politics. It requires social organisation, and morals predate that.
Show me somewhere where a war happened without a society. Ok? Should be easy, since its natural, yes? Just one example.

The fact that it requires societies to exist means that moral values must exist in order for this concept to proceeed.
Since society is a construction of our species, then War too is a social construction. But again, I challenge you to show me how it is natural to our species.

If you are going to talk to me about random, indiscriminate violence, that is not war. And that is why we have morals, because we aren't animals. Do you think that if we gave in to our "natural" instincts, that mechanics could fantasize about war? Or would we all be living in caves grunting and randomly mating with hairy females?