It has just been announced that someone famous has died. That's right. That beacon of personality you were mildy amused by on TV for a cumulative 12 hours of your life. The guy who built that must-have device you happen to own. He could even be as important as one of the 95 singers on your iPod.
We won't tell you who just yet, as all who have been told have literally died instantly after hearing about it. In fact, scientists around the globe have teamed up to see if the adverse effects of this celebrity's passing can be reversed. As for now, make peace with your gods and tell you're loved one's you love them, because it isn't looking good. The apocalypse will in fact be brought on by the death of this person. We have, for this reason, filled every news station and People magazine with their story and put 72 hours of tribute videos on all educational channels, so we better understand the cause of this doomsday.
To make matters worse, this person grew up in a rough and impoverished home on his way to stardom. We as a people so enamored with this figure in time are dedicating the next 8 days to be holidays remembering how this one person's rough background is important or even relavant to our lives. Even the people starving in Ethiopia will be bowing their heads to the moderate abuse and $25,000 yearly salary this man had to live by.
On a final note, there are a few rules involving the country's dress code. All citizens of the United States will be required to wear paraphernalia of this person in the form of at least three articles on their body. This is in no way, however, a limit to the number of items you may wear with this person's face or logo present. The requirement will be reduced to 2 if a citizen posts at least 3 Facebook statuses or 4 tweets about this person. Crying frowny-faces are not mandatory but encouraged.
So, as a goodbye, we the media say rest in peace, person I saw on TV one time. The end of the world won't feel the same without you. I won't forget you for the next three weeks, or what all you did even though I didn't really know until after you were dead for about two days.
Pages
▼
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Occupy Jupiter
Dear planets of the solar system,
I come to you today with a grave heart to talk about a issue of the utmost importance. A recent report has shown that 12.5% of the planets contains a staggering 71% of the mass! How long has this injustice been with us, I do not know. But now that a numerical figure exists, I feel that unless we do something soon, we will forever be unfairly treated.
I have stable lifeforms, access to solar energy, and a moon, but I am not the biggest planet. I am the 87.5%. If like me, you are the 87.5%, you should be angry. I personally believed that this tiny, yet majestic solar system of ours was built on the foundations of equal opportunity and equal rights. Yet, where are those equalities when a fraction of the planets contain the majority of the mass?
It is utterly unfair that we do the same amount of work orbiting the sun, but are vastly smaller. Jupiter didn't work harder than anyone of us; it was just created this way. And because of it, Jupiter has advantages no one else has. The laws of physics were clearly written to favor the bigger planets over the smaller ones, just look at Jupiter's massive gravity. Physics should not discriminate against us because we are smaller. Physics should be created to equally represent all planets.
What exactly we are trying to be accomplished has yet to be figured out. Yet if you feel angry about this issue, come to Jupiter and protest against this atrocious wrongdoing. It's okay if you don't understand why we are protesting, or how Jupiter's mass affects us; we don't fully understand it ourselves. Just always remember one thing. We are the 87.5%.
I come to you today with a grave heart to talk about a issue of the utmost importance. A recent report has shown that 12.5% of the planets contains a staggering 71% of the mass! How long has this injustice been with us, I do not know. But now that a numerical figure exists, I feel that unless we do something soon, we will forever be unfairly treated.
I have stable lifeforms, access to solar energy, and a moon, but I am not the biggest planet. I am the 87.5%. If like me, you are the 87.5%, you should be angry. I personally believed that this tiny, yet majestic solar system of ours was built on the foundations of equal opportunity and equal rights. Yet, where are those equalities when a fraction of the planets contain the majority of the mass?
It is utterly unfair that we do the same amount of work orbiting the sun, but are vastly smaller. Jupiter didn't work harder than anyone of us; it was just created this way. And because of it, Jupiter has advantages no one else has. The laws of physics were clearly written to favor the bigger planets over the smaller ones, just look at Jupiter's massive gravity. Physics should not discriminate against us because we are smaller. Physics should be created to equally represent all planets.
What exactly we are trying to be accomplished has yet to be figured out. Yet if you feel angry about this issue, come to Jupiter and protest against this atrocious wrongdoing. It's okay if you don't understand why we are protesting, or how Jupiter's mass affects us; we don't fully understand it ourselves. Just always remember one thing. We are the 87.5%.
i'm no superhero
Recently I have become increasingly aware of the astounding humanitarian contributions my fellow 2013 classmates have made impacting society. In the frenzy of junior year, we are all looking for a way to "separate" ourselves from the others. In fact I've even heard the term "separator" used by a college planner not long ago; it is the one thing that makes you stand out in they eyes of a college admissions staff official. Because we all know that simply being yourself and being honest about what we normally do isn't nearly fascinating enough, we are compelled to continually "better" ourselves. And not only better ourselves, but better the rest of the world and all of its people too. Of course the crowning achievement for the college hopeful is that one sacred document: your resume. It is the end all be all. Judging by what I've seen, kids nowadays are doing some really spectacular things in their spare time. The days of taking a break and watching a little TV are long gone. Instead, such unproductive activities are replaced with some of the following:
1) feeding the hungry
2) housing the homeless
3) advocating for a fair and just society
4) reducing greenhouse gases
5) working on a cure for cancer
All of these lofty accomplishments, may I say, quite impress me! They can all make a girl feel, well...average. I feel as if some of my more realistic goals and standards live up to these just as well, as I can honestly say I am just being myself. As I look around a room full of what appear to be normal-looking individuals, I soon realize that instead, these people are all changing the world. I think I'll stick with getting good grades, being a good person, and being involved in my community for the moment. I think the future of our country is in great hands, and with that in mind, I think I'll go grab a snack and watch the latest episode of Gossip Girl.
What are friends for?
Foreword: There are far too many issues in the world, but I will pick the first one I think of in this moment. It's not the most important to me, but I'll enjoy writing it.
What are friends for? A common phrase, a rhetorical question. But what, really, are friends for? What is a friend's role in his or her friends life? In my experience with friends, I'll tell you what I've learned personally. Your best friend is someone who will hang out with you on the weekends; someone who likes similar things as you; someone who you can laugh with. But don't be fooled by television shows like "The Golden Girls" where friends are always there for each other when they need them the most. Shows like this make it seem like friends should be there for emotional support when they go through rough times. This is not necessary. If your friend is dealing with a difficult time in their life, just ignore it. Don't bother asking how they are or giving them advice. This puts too much pressure on you. Friendships should be something happy and superificial, not truly meaningful; that takes away all the fun of it. The best thing to do is just let them get over by themselves; they will still come crawling back to you because they have no one else. You should be focused on how great your own life is; it would be selfish for them to bring you down with their crying and pessimism. The lesson I've learned through personally experience is simply this: don't be fooled by what you see in the media, friendship is something for the surface, nothing deeper.
What are friends for? A common phrase, a rhetorical question. But what, really, are friends for? What is a friend's role in his or her friends life? In my experience with friends, I'll tell you what I've learned personally. Your best friend is someone who will hang out with you on the weekends; someone who likes similar things as you; someone who you can laugh with. But don't be fooled by television shows like "The Golden Girls" where friends are always there for each other when they need them the most. Shows like this make it seem like friends should be there for emotional support when they go through rough times. This is not necessary. If your friend is dealing with a difficult time in their life, just ignore it. Don't bother asking how they are or giving them advice. This puts too much pressure on you. Friendships should be something happy and superificial, not truly meaningful; that takes away all the fun of it. The best thing to do is just let them get over by themselves; they will still come crawling back to you because they have no one else. You should be focused on how great your own life is; it would be selfish for them to bring you down with their crying and pessimism. The lesson I've learned through personally experience is simply this: don't be fooled by what you see in the media, friendship is something for the surface, nothing deeper.
A Modest Proposal
As many of you may know, the human race just passed its 7 billion mark this week. Truly, this is a great feat. However, it is as dangerous as it is amazing. Think about overpopulation. There are certainly not enough resources to sustain seven billion people, as even with 6 billion people oil and other energy sources were becoming scarce. Think about the food situation. Now, as a planet, we have seven billion mouths to feed. Considering that a very small percentage of land is actually arable and that much arable land is not used, there will be great difficulty in preventing many people from starving. Furthermore, the amount of fuel usage will increase greatly, causing two more problems: one, the diminishing of oil reserves and coal reserves, and two, the increasing of greenhouse gases, causing our planet's heat to skyrocket.
It is with this realization in mind that I propose a solution to our worries.
All people should be given sufficient population control restraints. Schools should teach children about proper contraceptive use, so that, when such a time arrives as they would need to use the contraceptives, they will be thoroughly prepared. Further precautions may be taken in the case of a family having more than two children.
Furthermore, I believe that homeless people can be used as a food source. They are unable to contribute anything to society, as the majority of them do not have jobs. They are taking up space on the streets, and are, in effect, useless. Killing them to process them into food would serve a greater purpose in keeping other people with a potential future alive. Certainly, if the homeless people knew that, by dying, and ending a life of misery and pain, they could bring sustenance and joy to other human beings, they would, I am certain, give up their lives freely. It would, unfortunately, be too difficult to take the time to explain this to them. Therefore, it would be prudent to just kill them, and send a letter to their next of kin, explaining the situation. (Furthermore, the letter should explain that, if their next of kin had taken care of them, the homeless person would not have been in such a situation, and the blame falls squarely on their relations' shoulders.)
A further point that could be carried out in order to reduce the population is the production of anthrax. I realize that many people may be against this, under the grounds that it may kill people, but, unlike many other forms of lethal weaponry, anthrax is not something that kills due to prejudice against another's race or sexual orientation. It is, in effect, a thoroughly egalitarian killer! Furthermore, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, a right which members of the NRA constantly parrot. These arms, mainly guns, are most commonly used to kill people. If that is the case, then why can't anthrax, which does the same thing, be protected under the second amendment?
It is with this realization in mind that I propose a solution to our worries.
All people should be given sufficient population control restraints. Schools should teach children about proper contraceptive use, so that, when such a time arrives as they would need to use the contraceptives, they will be thoroughly prepared. Further precautions may be taken in the case of a family having more than two children.
Furthermore, I believe that homeless people can be used as a food source. They are unable to contribute anything to society, as the majority of them do not have jobs. They are taking up space on the streets, and are, in effect, useless. Killing them to process them into food would serve a greater purpose in keeping other people with a potential future alive. Certainly, if the homeless people knew that, by dying, and ending a life of misery and pain, they could bring sustenance and joy to other human beings, they would, I am certain, give up their lives freely. It would, unfortunately, be too difficult to take the time to explain this to them. Therefore, it would be prudent to just kill them, and send a letter to their next of kin, explaining the situation. (Furthermore, the letter should explain that, if their next of kin had taken care of them, the homeless person would not have been in such a situation, and the blame falls squarely on their relations' shoulders.)
A further point that could be carried out in order to reduce the population is the production of anthrax. I realize that many people may be against this, under the grounds that it may kill people, but, unlike many other forms of lethal weaponry, anthrax is not something that kills due to prejudice against another's race or sexual orientation. It is, in effect, a thoroughly egalitarian killer! Furthermore, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, a right which members of the NRA constantly parrot. These arms, mainly guns, are most commonly used to kill people. If that is the case, then why can't anthrax, which does the same thing, be protected under the second amendment?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Eater's Guide to the Perfect Dining Experience
While we all enjoy a nice time going out to eat, nothing makes the evening better than excellent service. Now, how do you ensure your food is cooked top notch and made to your tastes exactly? Well, as a person well versed in the restaurateur field, there are a few things I have learned over these past few years.
It's simple; there are a few steps to guaranteeing yourself the ultimate dining experience.
1. Always arrive fashionably late. When the place closes at 10 PM, make sure you get there around 9:45 or so. Nothing pleases the employees more than to see smiling faces late at night before closing time.
2. Order water and take your time (remember you're fashionably late, which means you should also stylishly read every item on the menu a few times to make sure you didn't miss anything)
3. Tell your waiter/waitress that there's something wrong with your food, whether it's under cooked or doesn't taste right. Remember, the most fun thing about most restaurants is that the customer is always right. In fact, have your fun with the server!
4. Now, once you have your food, tell your server it's too salty, or bland. Or even better, change your order while they're cooking your first choice to make sure the restaurant is working hard and doesn't go out of practice. The server is always pleased to tell the chef to make another order from scratch. This will ensure you get a "special treatment" from the kitchen staff.
5. Nothing is more pleasing than sending back your order. Referring back to step 3, the customer is always right. Sometimes, if you're lucky you may get a free meal by pointing out somehow that the server made a mistake. Kudos if you can pull step 5 off.
6. Ah, now for dessert, the sinful delight of the meal. It is what one remembers the most after eating. As such, you should make it as big a deal as possible. Tell the server what you want, and tweak the menu a little, saying how you don;t want chocolate sauce here, or avoid nuts because you'll swell up like a balloon (OK, allergies are fine). The server will be happy to fit your accommodations.
7. Now, for the best part; paying tip. If you're a master of eating out at restaurants, your bill should be small, and your stomach full if you have achieved the previous steps. Now, make sure you leave a classy tip. 5% should do.
8. Once your eating experience is over, reflect on the meal. You should never return to this place, as the wonderful memories would be covered by another meal here. Find your next destination and repeat steps 1-7.
Now, you should have enjoyed a nice time out with some good company. Given that your meal was spit-free or lacks hair, your role as the perfect customer should be filled.
Happy dining!
Another Fantastic Debate
Reporter>>"From the capitol in Frankfort, I'm Nüs Caster. Here today we're covering the much-anticipated debate between the three major candidates for governor, pitted against each other on those heated issues: Bla Bla Bla Bla horses Bla Bla gambling Bla recession, Bla Bla Bla Bla job-creation Bla Bla Wall-Street Bla incentive, and of course Bla Bla family values, but also Bla coal Bla coal Bla renewable energy Bla and definitely coal.
Reporter>>"Back again, joining you from inside Frankfrort Arena. And what a spectacle it is! The seats are packed with fans from all over Kentucky. We made our way to the Moderator's table to find out about how he plans to conduct this debate."
"Mr. Moderator, how is this debate going to operate?
Moderator>>"Man, what is this moderator nonsense? Call me Disc Jockey. I'm just gonna lay down a beat and let 'em do they thang."
Reporter>>"Ohh, yes of course. Always comforting to have an experienced moderator at the table. . . . OH, it looks as though the debate's about to start! Let's tune in. The first question always goes to the incumbent. . . ."
____________________________________________________________________
Moderator>>"Mmm. Yeah, I feel that. Blue Dog, you call yoself a Democrat. The Democrats are in the White House, and times ain't gettin' any betta. What have you got to say fo yoself? 30 seconds. The beat starts... now."
Liberal>> "Hey McDuddy?
Why don't you call yo buddies
in Halliburton, Exxon,
and bring em down to *Huddy?
I know the people.
"And here they come now! Never have I seen three contenders with such impressive track records. It looks like the first to enter the arena today is our hometown favorite, the incumbent: Fudd E. McDuddy-- 'F Duddy' as they call him around here.
Reporter>>"Duddy, it looks like you've got quite the crowd pulling it in for you today."
Reporter>>"Duddy, it looks like you've got quite the crowd pulling it in for you today."
McDuddy>>"Word."
Reporter>>"Ooh, true! Definitely, McDuddy. Classic; he always knows what to say. Oh, and here comes our prime challenger, Baerly Liberal--but we like to call him 'Blue Dog.' Looks like we can't talk to him right now, though; as usual, he's using the back-door entrance.
"Oh, but look-- here we have our final contender, Lib R. Tarian. Lib, I've been told you're representing a third party on the ballot. Do you still think you can win it even with such powerful contenders?
Tarian>>"Ho, I don't care. I'll be happy just to get in they grills."
"Oh, but look-- here we have our final contender, Lib R. Tarian. Lib, I've been told you're representing a third party on the ballot. Do you still think you can win it even with such powerful contenders?
Tarian>>"Ho, I don't care. I'll be happy just to get in they grills."
Reporter>>"Well, there you have it! Lib tends to draw an interesting crowd to these debates--they're eyes are always bloodshot and they wave signs with leaves on them. But that's enough dilly-dallying. Let's head into the arena and catch this debate!"
____________________________________________________________________
Reporter>>"Back again, joining you from inside Frankfrort Arena. And what a spectacle it is! The seats are packed with fans from all over Kentucky. We made our way to the Moderator's table to find out about how he plans to conduct this debate."
"Mr. Moderator, how is this debate going to operate?
Moderator>>"Man, what is this moderator nonsense? Call me Disc Jockey. I'm just gonna lay down a beat and let 'em do they thang."
Reporter>>"Ohh, yes of course. Always comforting to have an experienced moderator at the table. . . . OH, it looks as though the debate's about to start! Let's tune in. The first question always goes to the incumbent. . . ."
____________________________________________________________________
Moderator>>"Aight so you old man, F Duddy, whatchu think about the economy bein all down and recession and stuff? You got 30 seconds to give me yo best rap. Here's yo beat."
McDuddy>>"Uh. Uh. Yeah. Alright.
We're goin backwards.
McDuddy>>"Uh. Uh. Yeah. Alright.
We're goin backwards.
The nation's bass ackwards.
We givin all our money
to them lower-class slackers.
Obamanomics
from those White-House comics.
They lendin U.S. credit
to them Chinese Commies."
to them lower-class slackers.
Obamanomics
from those White-House comics.
They lendin U.S. credit
to them Chinese Commies."
Moderator>>"Mmm. Yeah, I feel that. Blue Dog, you call yoself a Democrat. The Democrats are in the White House, and times ain't gettin' any betta. What have you got to say fo yoself? 30 seconds. The beat starts... now."
Liberal>> "Hey McDuddy?
Why don't you call yo buddies
in Halliburton, Exxon,
and bring em down to *Huddy?
I know the people.
Sunday's I'm under the steeple.
They would hang around with you
but you're and ugly old creeper."
Moderator>>"OOH! I'm gonna have to put that down in my log as a burn on you, Duddy. And what about this weirdy over here, Lib R. Tarian. Where'd you even come from? I got no idea who you representin' today. Why should we vote for you, punk? I'll give you a new beat."
Tarian>> "I'm bustin out the rhymes
They would hang around with you
but you're and ugly old creeper."
Moderator>>"OOH! I'm gonna have to put that down in my log as a burn on you, Duddy. And what about this weirdy over here, Lib R. Tarian. Where'd you even come from? I got no idea who you representin' today. Why should we vote for you, punk? I'll give you a new beat."
Tarian>> "I'm bustin out the rhymes
like cops bust us for crimes
that exceed the limitations
of the Constitution's lines.
Leave me alone
in my 900K home
I would call upon my rights--but
you probably tapped my telephone."
Moderator>>"Whaddyou know, Tarian's got skillz. Hey, folks, we'd stick around but we got a party tonight at the Kardashian's house. Peace out!"
Reporter>>"And there you have it! Another fantastic debate from those three star contenders. Honestly I can't decide myself--I was too distracted by their bling to listen to any of their ideas. Oh well, I've got a job and life could be worse. I guess I'll just vote for the incumbent again."
you probably tapped my telephone."
Moderator>>"Whaddyou know, Tarian's got skillz. Hey, folks, we'd stick around but we got a party tonight at the Kardashian's house. Peace out!"
Reporter>>"And there you have it! Another fantastic debate from those three star contenders. Honestly I can't decide myself--I was too distracted by their bling to listen to any of their ideas. Oh well, I've got a job and life could be worse. I guess I'll just vote for the incumbent again."
*Huddy is a small town in extreme Eastern Kentucky, near Pikeville.
Assignment 10: Changes
Think of all of the things and ideas that exist in the world.
Which one bothers you the most?
Write a satire on this bothering issue.
Minimum of 150 words - due Sunday, October 30 at 11:59 pm
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
My Snake Plays Fletch
Saturday, I came home to my family's newest pet: Earl. MY three brothers have copious amounts of cuddly animals; we went through our cat phase, then the dog phase. Unfortunately, I like to call these fuzzy animals disposable pets because they only stick around for several weeks, then they are given to the newest construction worker. However cuddly and adorable the newest puppy may be, the potty accidents became to much. Earl was different. A small snake was coiled up in a glass box: Earl.
A small list was put on the refrigerator giving instructions to change the litter, change the water, replenish the feeding devices, walk them and play. Naturally, i went to the snakes glass container to change the litter. Reluctantly, I stuck my hand in the cage. I did not like Earl. His litter wasn't even soiled, but, obediently, I changed his wood shavings. There was no water in his container, so I filled a shallow dish with tap water. Good enough, right?
It was always the brothers jobs to walk and play with the pets. In the backyard, my youngest brother, Phillip, had taken Earl outside. Good God. He was touching Earl with his hands and what if he was to get free?! Horrifying images ran through my head, but then I remembered. The List. Phillip was just walking Earl.
I woke up the next morning to my mother screaming about the cat's litter and the dog's lack of food. Ofcourse, it was my fault. I answered, "I did change the litter and feed it."
"Snakes only eat once every two weeks, their litter is rarely changed and he is not a water snake." My mom answered.
I began to like Earl; he was the easiest pet to keep! Earl was unoticeable just like the outdated toys in the basement. He was more like an inanimate obect than a pet. I fed the dog everyday for the next month and waited for the day to feed Earl. I peered into the glass container, and Earl was gone. How long had he been gone? Where is he? When did he escape?!
A pet snake is as good as toy snake, except it is scarier when you have lost it.
A small list was put on the refrigerator giving instructions to change the litter, change the water, replenish the feeding devices, walk them and play. Naturally, i went to the snakes glass container to change the litter. Reluctantly, I stuck my hand in the cage. I did not like Earl. His litter wasn't even soiled, but, obediently, I changed his wood shavings. There was no water in his container, so I filled a shallow dish with tap water. Good enough, right?
It was always the brothers jobs to walk and play with the pets. In the backyard, my youngest brother, Phillip, had taken Earl outside. Good God. He was touching Earl with his hands and what if he was to get free?! Horrifying images ran through my head, but then I remembered. The List. Phillip was just walking Earl.
I woke up the next morning to my mother screaming about the cat's litter and the dog's lack of food. Ofcourse, it was my fault. I answered, "I did change the litter and feed it."
"Snakes only eat once every two weeks, their litter is rarely changed and he is not a water snake." My mom answered.
I began to like Earl; he was the easiest pet to keep! Earl was unoticeable just like the outdated toys in the basement. He was more like an inanimate obect than a pet. I fed the dog everyday for the next month and waited for the day to feed Earl. I peered into the glass container, and Earl was gone. How long had he been gone? Where is he? When did he escape?!
A pet snake is as good as toy snake, except it is scarier when you have lost it.
Staring at Screens
Well, since I can't find what exactly the assignment is I'm just gonna wing it and write a quick satire, satirizing anything I want because that's what Mr. Logsdon made it sound like it was.
My Weekend: The most amazing part of the week. The two days we all have off from school, work, waking up early, stressing about homework, and living our pathetic "week-day" lives that at least I can't stand. Well, that is until Sunday. Then we have to go to our religious services, actually do all the homework accumulated from Friday and Saturday, get all of our domestic chores done, and spend the remainder of the day preparing ourselves for the dreadful week to come. So honestly Sundays shouldn't even count as the weekend...they're almost as bad as week days themselves.
But now you ask, so how do you spend your incredible one day off everything in your life? Well, I spend it by staring at various screens. I wake up and stare at the latest and greatest Amazon Kindle screen for a good hour and a half, and then I walk downstairs and stare at the computer screen for another hour while I eat my breakfast. Then I go lay on a couch and stare at this huge 46 inch screen I have in my family room for another 3 hours. Sometimes my parents invite all their friends over to stare at the huge screen with us, but usually it's just my brother Austin and I. And during all of this I am periodically staring at my iPhone screen for small increments of time, because why stare at one screen when you can stare at two? Oh yes, the more the merrier. So that's why after all of this staring at screens I'll usually stare at my friends' names on that iPhone screen to figure out what's going on that night and who needs to be picked up, and then I go to their houses so we can all stare at our screens together! Sometimes I even stare at my iPhone screen on my way there! Why, my Saturdays are so much fun that after staring at all of these screens for the 14 hours that I'm awake, I can't wait to do it again on my next Saturday!
You see, I think I might have a bit of a staring-at-screens addiction, and I think that almost everyone I know shares it with me. We're so desperate to stare at our screens whenever we can that even during school, when all of our screens are forbidden, we still take the risks to stare at them and often get in trouble. It's really weird! It's odd though, that when some of my friends are faced with issues that involve them NOT staring at their screens for an extended period of time, like camping, they usually can't handle it! They just go crazy!
My mom knows about my excessive staring at screens problem too, because whenever she's mad at me, she takes all my screens away! That makes me go sit in my room and cry until she feels bad and gives them back. But you see, I just can't stop staring at screens!
Sunday, October 23, 2011
There are some things worth fighting for
Human history is nothing if not a narrative of constant struggle. Indeed, the miracle of culture, the domination of Earth's landscape, and the establishment of governance were all built on the weary backs of hard working men and women. Because we have worked so hard for our culture and our belongings and our government, we cherish them greatly. War is simply the manifestation of the idea that these are the things in life worth fighting for. The action of combating a threat to what you feel is right or what you know is yours is a valiant one, regardless of how block-headed it may sound at face value. It is only when we pervert the meaning of war for greed and hatred that it becomes unacceptable.
To compare WWII or the Revolutionary war to the Vietnam war or the Crusades is to make that distinction. When Hitler launched his morally unjustifiable agenda and began to take our allies, apathy was not optional; we had to fight, not only to protect ourselves, but also to preserve our ideals. When we felt entitled to our own governance and king George wouldn't budge, we absolutely had the right to take it by force. By contrast, the clash of ideals that lead to the death of thousands over conflicts that could have been easily resolved with diplomacy in the USSR and its proxy state of Vietnam were deplorable. Similarly, the senseless killing of middle-easterners and Catholics over misinterpreted words and invisible men in the sky c. 1200 AD could not have been less defensible. As long as it is merely protective of values, people, and possessions and not just a political con, war is morally defensible. However, there is a line, and it can be crossed without too much effort.
To compare WWII or the Revolutionary war to the Vietnam war or the Crusades is to make that distinction. When Hitler launched his morally unjustifiable agenda and began to take our allies, apathy was not optional; we had to fight, not only to protect ourselves, but also to preserve our ideals. When we felt entitled to our own governance and king George wouldn't budge, we absolutely had the right to take it by force. By contrast, the clash of ideals that lead to the death of thousands over conflicts that could have been easily resolved with diplomacy in the USSR and its proxy state of Vietnam were deplorable. Similarly, the senseless killing of middle-easterners and Catholics over misinterpreted words and invisible men in the sky c. 1200 AD could not have been less defensible. As long as it is merely protective of values, people, and possessions and not just a political con, war is morally defensible. However, there is a line, and it can be crossed without too much effort.
"War is Hell." - William Sherman
Yay, quote bandwagon!
Simply put, war is where two (or more) groups of people who have disagreeing beliefs engage in violent conflict that usually ends in the losing group being forced to agree/put up with the winning group. People fight for every reason imaginable – over who actually owns a plot of land, to conquer other nations, or to stop injustices. But is war necessary?
Yes.
However, there are many conditions attached to the “Yes.” The most important thing anyone has to realize is that war is a final resort. If agreement can be reached through any other nonviolent means, by all means, both sides should at least attempt it. However, if one side is actively oppressing its citizens by means of force, such as discrimination and persecution based on religion, ethnicity, or other factors, and a bloodless revolution is not possible, direct intervention is necessary. Additionally, if retaliation must occur to stop one side from attacking the other, and negotiation is impossible, the defending side has the right to defend – but not to the point of killing innocents or invading.
Even though everyone must defend oneself, it is a moral conundrum. Is it right to fight back if provoked? If you are attacked, and you damage your opponent more than he damaged you, is it offensive or defensive? Is harming anyone morally right? Consider the dogma “an eye for an eye”. Does it really work? These are questions posed by those who think deeply about war. The concept of an “equal and opposite reaction” will never work, because people will always want more revenge. If someone kills your son because you killed his, you’ll definitely want revenge; even though it is rationally “equal”, humans just don’t work that way, and will always want more.
Countries work in the same way, since they’re just a group of humans who decide what the majority wants. Once again, non-violent negotiations would be ideal in defusing a situation, but if war is inevitable, action is necessary. Nevertheless, this action should be quick and effective, so as to allow for a new, favorable government to rise without trouble. If it will save the lives of thousands that might be lost to an extended war, then by all means, it should be done. Only if it is agreed by a majority of nations that the offending country is in need of a regime change due to open hostilities and oppression, the decapitation of its government might be what is necessary. Once again, this is if and only if the government:
-Does not comply with the Geneva Convention
-Is openly hostile to other countries and threatens to use military force
-Is opposed by a majority of its citizens
-Will not cease inhumanities and/or step down from power
As I’ve repeated myself several times, war should be avoided at all costs. Each nation or groups of nations must strive towards peace through efficient negotiations, with war only as a last resort. Sure, even though this might be hard if two superpowers are viciously attempting to gain the upper hand, many of the oppressive and aggressive nations today are almost like small dogs – they’re small packages of vicious fury – but can be taught their place.
When our hand is forced....
War is something that should not be entered into lightly. It is still horrible to see pictures of the Vietnam War and to witness the effects that it is has had on its veterans. War has almost no benefit when entered into unprovoked and has almost no winner after all of the deaths have been paid. But what about when it IS provoked?
When our hand is forced into entering war, I believe that we have alternative to war. When we are personally attacked and our safety is put into jeopardy, I believe that the only result can be war. War is ugly; in fact, war is an abomination. But the choice is rarely ours to make; rather, it is the choice of doing what is right.
When our hand is forced into entering war, I believe that we have alternative to war. When we are personally attacked and our safety is put into jeopardy, I believe that the only result can be war. War is ugly; in fact, war is an abomination. But the choice is rarely ours to make; rather, it is the choice of doing what is right.
But what if one were to believe that staying out of war is to do what is right? There are, of course, people who believe this, and, if I entered into conversation with them, I would hesitate with my response. Why? There is no easy answer, because war is so paradoxical. It can help achieve what we believe to be "right", but there are so many consequences that make us stop and consider the moral repercussions of it all.
War
Yes, war though it may be evil, is necessary on some occasions because war is never declared on a country for no reason, every act of war on a country has a definite reason. However, most people would argue that it war is never the answer but when an evil dictator or a leader of terrorists, the only answer is to fight back and end the problem permanently. War is not the lesser of two evils because the brave men and women who risk their lives know that what they do is for the greater good, peace. However, war should never be used as the first answer to all problems, there are many other ways in which a country can solve a problem, but when worst comes to worst war will need to be used to correct the dilemma. A country, like the US, or countries have the responsibility to enact war on a country or people when a great evil that has to be stopped, both World Wars show that the stronger countries must intervene and help the countries that cannot fight and solve a problem for themselves. Overall, war is never the best choice of solutions for a country to take when attempting to fix a problem, however when the worst comes to worst and something has to happen war can be and should be used as a solution.
War
Is war good? Sometimes. Is war bad? More than sometimes. War is often fought with debatably bad intentions, ie. Resources, ethnic cleansing, religious differences, etc. But, war can be fought for good reasons as well. If there is a nation that is either planning to attack your home country, or is attempting genocide on a race of people, I believe war is a worthwhile ordeal. Does this make it morally okay? Well, that is subjective; however, I for one believe that it is simply the lesser of two evils. This is because war is bloody and far from glorious; there are no morals in killing many people. There is justification of these actions though. Most times, war is fought over the aforementioned bad reasons however. One group either hates the other for being heretics, or having different beliefs. Killing for the sake of killing is just bad, unless you are Charles Manson or Jason Vorhees. But when it comes down to self-defense, and you are protecting yourself from others’ bad intentions, you have no choice but to grit your teeth and fight.
so much ignorance is shown when this topic is dicussed
Wars occur because there is evil in the world, and we, with our fallibility and finite wisdom, choose war when we see it as the last or the best option when an aggressor sets the price for their version of peace or the price for their evil-ridden goals too high.
We then, inevitably, find ourselves grappling with the deaths of those who commit themselves to standing between us and the barbarians. But we also, as General George Patton pointed out, "Thank God that such men lived."
America is hated by many people, societies, and countries. I watched a documentary one afternoon that was on the subject of the amount of hate that there is for the success of America. In some societies, children (as early as the age of 6 or 7) are presented with guns and taught not math and science, but the simple idea that their life goal is to destroy America. Soldiers know what they are sacrificing when they enlist in the Armed Forces. Those who regret what they have done in the proud name of America should never have served in the first place. War is not a time for the weak hearted. It is only a time for the strongest, the bravest, and the selfless.
I am not "pro-war" nor am I "anti-war," both titles of which are full of ignorant implications. I believe war is necessary; actually I believe that anything is necessary when it comes to defending the United States of America, her citizens, and what she stands for all over the world. I believe that it is necessary for us to defend ourselves at all costs. We don't go around looking for trouble, who's the most vulnerable, who might be fun to bully. We act back. If something is done to us, we make it known that we aren't going to let it slide..well that's what it used to be. Don't get me wrong, I would much rather prefer that no wars be going on at all, but I do believe that as long as evil is out there that is sworn to destroying our country, I will acknowledge that there must be a certain level of violence and sacrifice needed to prevent evil's goal from being reached.
America is one of the youngest countries on earth. Yet, it is in many ways, the most powerful and influential country on earth. We are the economic, the political, the industrial powerhouse of the world (just some examples). We have won almost every single war that we have been a part of, including when we weren't even a country yet, fighting against the most powerful military of it's time in Great Britain. Today we are too worried about how others feel and how people view us. Things "aren't fair" and we are "too mean." Suck it up. With ideologies like that, all that powerhouse stuff will go down the drain. The Chinese are laughing at us in terms of energy. While we are trying all of this new green, electric energy stuff, China is taking over the energy powerhouse title. People nowadays feel sorry because America is so great. It's not fair to other countries who don't have what we have. I agree, but life isn't fair. It doesn't mean we have to dumb down our society, bring down our standards, and bring down our production levels. We have been given so much, that it is all taken for granted. What we don't realize is that it can all be taken away if we do not continue to strive to being the best in everything we do, including defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
My father served 39 years and 7 months in the military. In Hawaii, he served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Pacific Command, which is the largest military command in the entire world. When living in Hawaii, I was surrounded by the military. The military is one of the things that makes Hawaii such a great place. The feeling of patriotism that is everywhere you go is powerful. Living in a military family, surrounded by other military families, being friends with other military family children, and my overall experiences over there have shaped me and my beliefs. I am fortunate to have had these experiences, many, if not all of which no one that I know who lives here has ever and may never have the pleasure of enjoying. Because of my father's position, I experienced things that even people there would not experience, thus allowing me more to base my beliefs off of. I believe that if everyone here experienced what my family did, their view on war; their view on our country and what it stands for; and their view on the proud, brave, and selfless men and women who serve us would change drastically. I personally and respectfully believe that those who have not experienced the life of our military servicemen and women will never truly understand what and how much they sacrifice for us. People who worry about what other countries think of us, whether they like us or not, are wasting their time and energy. Some people will hate America for simply what is stands for. It is like that student who tries to please everyone they hang out with...It just won't happen. That worry should be at the very bottom of the list, maybe even non-existent. They will never understand the true reason why we get up every morning in a free nation; the greatest country on earth, the land of the free and the home of the brave...The United States of America.
War. What is it good for?
Although war is inevitable, I don't think that countries should be so eager to start or become involved in the violent fighting. Yes, war can be necessary in some situations, but it remain between those who it effects. Surrounding countries shouldn't become involved. Nothing good can come out of a war full of countries fighting with their allies over something that occurred between two countries and could have been resolved quicker and easier than a world war. I do not believe that the violence of war is morally acceptable. It would be ideal for problems between different groups of people to be resolved through peaceful compromises, but it is obvious that this is never how the world will work. Because of this, war will always occur, but the extent at to which it is taken can be lessened by the neutrality of other countries. I personally don't know when a country should declare war. It is solely based on the situation and how offended or hurt a country is, and it is there decision whether or not war is the only thing that can fix their problems.
GO WAR!
Personally, I believe that war is necessary when nations offend international law and are offensive towards other nations. Furthermore, I actually do not think that war is immoral even though many a man dies because of it. When war is deemed necessary by the international community than it is, no matter what, necessary for the offending nation to be put in its place. However, with that said I am against war for a nation's personal gain. There absolutely are times when countries must go to war because there are, without a doubt, times that acts of war must be committed to put nations in their place and war is often the only, as well as most effective, way of doing this. There are many, much less effective, alternatives to war but war is often what happens once those methods have been used and don't work.
War
War is something that most people seem familiar with, whether one has actually participated in it or has constantly seen it through the media. It is something that people have known most their lives and there have always been wars for as long as history has known it. I believe that during war there is no time to think about what's morally right and wrong. If some nation is attacking you, you better be ready to fight back. It is the ultimate action a country can take to get their point across. But whether any other country has a say in what they are doing, if it does not pertain that country, then stay out of their business.
The world has always been surrounded by injustice and threats. It's that as the more the world becomes globalized the more that everyone wants the world to think in the same principles. That is why I believe the places in the east such as Afghanistan or North Korea stand against the west. They don't understand why Americans are so intent in converting them to "modern standards" and see this change as hostile to the preservation of their beliefs and culture. In the past there are always tensions among those who have dissenting views and it's not uncommon to have them.
Whether there are alternatives is questionable. It depends on the situation and if one side is pushed to far it is probably not possible to solve the conflict in a peaceful manner. War is not always there but it always acts on the interests of their own. If we try putting ourselves in the shoes of the enemy then maybe it'd be easier to understand why they don't like us or why we are portrayed as bad guys. Maybe we are not as justified as we seem in our actions and I feel like in this case, America is overextending its power and trying to make order when it's just adding more gas to the fire.
The world has always been surrounded by injustice and threats. It's that as the more the world becomes globalized the more that everyone wants the world to think in the same principles. That is why I believe the places in the east such as Afghanistan or North Korea stand against the west. They don't understand why Americans are so intent in converting them to "modern standards" and see this change as hostile to the preservation of their beliefs and culture. In the past there are always tensions among those who have dissenting views and it's not uncommon to have them.
Whether there are alternatives is questionable. It depends on the situation and if one side is pushed to far it is probably not possible to solve the conflict in a peaceful manner. War is not always there but it always acts on the interests of their own. If we try putting ourselves in the shoes of the enemy then maybe it'd be easier to understand why they don't like us or why we are portrayed as bad guys. Maybe we are not as justified as we seem in our actions and I feel like in this case, America is overextending its power and trying to make order when it's just adding more gas to the fire.
bang bang bang
Is there a time for war?
If there is a time, is it morally right and just or is is it the lesser of two evils?
If there isn't a time, why not?
Are there certain times when countries have a responsibility to go to war?
Are there any alternatives? Could they be more effective or less effective?
No, there is never a time for war. Why should we pit innocent people against other most likely innocent people against each other to tear others limb from limb? Instead, we should all follow Jack Sparrow's way out of things. Negotiation should usually do the trick. Why should we as a civilized society bring ourselves down to our savage nature and commit acts of violence? It's totally degrading and more importantly exhausts our economy, even though certain people think it stimulates it. Look at us now, with this war. Our economy is clearly benefiting from it.
While I personally prefer a pacifistic way of dealing with things, there are times you can't help but use your fists. I have been taught never to start a fight. However, if the fight gets to me, I'd better finish it. When regarding war between countries I would prefer a simple yet effective action. Instead of mindlessly fighting for years on end, I would merely annihilate the country with whatever weapon that can do the job. But let's not deviate from my preferred pacifistic style.
As I have said, negotiation should do the job. As the saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Trivial things such as pride should never be of concern when you are deciding the fate of your country. This peaceful alternative would be more effective, since the need for an army would be discarded, and the possibility of a brighter future is available. As such, negotiating should do the trick. But if the time comes where the fight comes to you, finish it.
"There has never been a good war, nor a bad peace"
I believe that war should be avoided at all cost. In many cases, a war can be easily avoided, especially in situations where one country invades another unexpectedly. However, if the only option available to prevent harm to multiple other countries is to wage war, then it would be acceptable. However, waging war in such an instance would probably result in further destruction, as the country which was initially suspected of hostility towards other countries would have a concrete reason to strike against them, under the pretense that "those countries' allies attacked us first". War is incredibly problematic, though, and not doing anything about the offending country could result in them successfully attacking other countries, thereby making it too late to save anyone else. My views about war are probably best summed up by a quote from T.H. White:
"There was such a man when I was young--an Austrian who invented a new way of life and convinced himself that he was the chap to make it work. He tried to impose his reformation by the sword, and plunged the civilized world into misery and chaos. But the thing which this fellow had overlooked, my friend, was that he had a predecessor in the reformation business, called Jesus Christ. Perhaps we may assume that Jesus knew as much as the Austrian did about saving people. But the odd thing is that Jesus did not turn the disciples into storm troopers, burn down the Temple at Jerusalem, and fix the blame on Pontius Pilate. "
War, in many cases, can be prevented through discussion and compromise. It does not have to be a bloody affair, simply one wherein both sides are able to understand each other.
It's the only option...
When a country’s security is threatened, it is the country’s duty to protect the citizens by whatever means necessary. Therefore, when a catastrophic event occurs like the September 11th attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor or another equally threatening event, it is time for war. When a country goes to war with another, the goal should not be to destroy the other country and its citizens, but rather to find the source of the problem and attack it specifically. In the case of the War on Terror, many uninvolved civilians were also killed. This is not necessary. Attack the ones who are at fault. Not the innocent ones. Unfortunately, that isn’t always possible. War is not morally right, but what is in the world these days? There is really not an effective alternative to war and even if an alternative existed, it would probably not be used. As sad as it is, the world is used to attempting to solve its problems with war, and that will not change. You can’t just expect two enemies to sit around a table and discuss their feelings rationally and come up with a compromise. That is unrealistic. This is when war is necessary. Although it is messy, confusing, and detrimental to society, it is the only solution to the problems that our world faces.
The Lesser of Two Evils
War is never right because killing one another is always morally wrong. In a perfect world, all countries would be a part of the United Nations and would sign a pact against any wars. Unfortunately, there are people out there - terrorists, dictators, army generals - the aim to kill, rule, and destroy by any means, including violence. All issues between countries could be solved in civil, fair manners, but it is the stubbornness and pugnacity of others that prevent us all from achieving peace. Yes, fighting fire with fire only creates more fire, but sometimes it's the only resource you have. If a country is attacked directly, trying to solve the problems verbally may put more innocent lives at risk; so sadly, war may be the only weapon we have against those who threaten peace. This is why it is the lesser of two evils; but it should always, in every situation, be the last resort.
on the subject of war
WAR. A letter word with a profound meaning. I believe that war is a last resort--a desperate measure that should only be called upon after all other alternatives and efforts have been made to remedy the situation. War is such a dangerous concept to engage in--something we generally fear and try to avoid at all costs, but sometimes it just becomes the last hope or the one thing that can actually save us, thus making it necessary and just. The negative impacts of war can be immense, and I think the following quote from General Wesley K. Clark essentially sums up why: "War is a culture of its own, and it can undercut and ultimately destroy the cilvil societies that engage in it."
Why do we go to war? That is such a subjective and broad question with many, many answers. Sometimes our country simply must intervene on the moral grounds upon which a dictator or oppressive force in another culture must be eradicated. We can't sit idle watching a whole culture be torn apart and violated by constant wrath; it becomes a moral obligation for us to help and therefore enter a war. Take, for example, World War II. Our country really had no other alternative than to enter it because it was absolutely necessary to stop Hitler from taking over all of Europe. Sometimes we go to war though not just for moral reasons. We may step in because in the end it will be advantageous in some way to us, and we may have certain interests in a country that we'd like to protect. All in all, if war can be avoided, it generally should be. It would be best to engage in diplomacy if possible, thus reaching a passive agreement in which both parties will be satisfied. War can bring growth and prosper, yet it can also bring destruction, disorder, and unrest that can sometimes never be recovered from.
War
War is something that is inevitable. It is how people in this world are able to settle their differences. We are a violent society and for centuries now that is how we've settled conflict. Sure diplomatic reasons would much better for the world as a whole, but how can you negotiate with someone who wants nothing but to see your nation destroyed? We could've tried to negotiate with Al-Qaeda but you can imagine how that would end up. War is something nations have to go through if they want to protect themselves and their way of life. Self-defense is really where the majority of times when war is used and I think that this is morally acceptable. Its when nations send their youth out to fight for a cause that wasn't provoked is when the moral line gets crossed, and it does get crossed often. Genocide however is something that would never be acceptable, even in our war based world we live in now. War as self defense is something that cannot be avoid and must be used in order to retain your culture.
It's called National Defense not National Offense
War is a last resort. It is only to be employed if nothing else works. War is just about he worst thing for a country economically and politically. Take, for example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. First, that invasion cost the U.S. billions of dollars, which spiked our debt. Second, there were no WMDs and there was little sufficient evidence that they were their in the first place. Third, we need to consider how the people of Iraq feel about us now. There were an estimated one hundred civilian casualties. Now, not all of that blood is on U.S. hands. Most of the deaths were Iraqis killing Iraqis. But we still initiated the war that led to the deaths of many of those people. War, I think, is the most efficient method for instilling hate in people. Sure, we ousted Hussein, but at what cost? The Iraqi war was not a last resort; it was more of a first thought. War should not be handled in this manner. It should be carefully evaluated before any action is taken.
It is important to remember that is is called "National Defense" not "National Offense." I am not saying that we should wait until an enemy is on our shores to engage. I am merely warning against brash political behavior that involves the hasty invasion of foreign countries. These invasions are detrimental to the National Debt, economy and the image of the U.S.
It is important to remember that is is called "National Defense" not "National Offense." I am not saying that we should wait until an enemy is on our shores to engage. I am merely warning against brash political behavior that involves the hasty invasion of foreign countries. These invasions are detrimental to the National Debt, economy and the image of the U.S.
The War has begun
Without Barrett's knowledge I have started a war with him. A war over who can write the most for a single blog post. would this be considered a war? to some people no, but to others yes. is this "war" necessary? absolutely! Is it unnecessary also? that answer too is absolutely. War in the sense that i am typing about is one of good naturedness. the kind of war that Mrs. Carpenter has asked us to write about is a completely different kind of thing altogether.
War in the usual sense means death, is death good? the obvious answer is no. But as we listened to in class is there a moral side of murder? can killing a few to save a thousand be beneficial? my answer the posed question is yes, war is good, and sometimes it is even needed. addressing the beginning of the prompt about nuclear weapons in North Korea: North Korea should not be allowed to have them in their current state of government. right now the korean government is corrupt and so to not go to war with them and allow them to get nuclear weapons could potentially mean starting a nuclear war/ nuclear winter. no one in their right mind would say that nuclear winter is a good thing. So is North Korea does end up with nuclear capabilities it would only be the correct thing to try to stop them from using it.
An argument that is frequently brought up when the USA goes to war is the fact that we are sticking our nose in places that we shouldn't. Perhaps we shouldnt, but on the other side of the coin what about our morals, dont they have to be upheld also? in many peoples opinions, even those opposed to war, yes they do have to be upheld. therefore to uphold the morals the united states set down we sometimes have to go to war when diplomacy doesnt work.
In 1823 the Monroe Doctrine was issued. this stated that the US would go to war with anyone interfering with another countries right to independence, and trying to become a republic. this set up the US to be the protector of the "little guys" so to say, and the UsS has proudly continued that tradition ever since. everyone in the 1820's considered it to be a good doctrine so why now is there so much controversy over when we go to wars?
The one problem that i do have with wars however is when the US goes to war without the majority of consent from the people of the United States. This country is supposed to be run by the people and for the people, so when the government violates the consent of the people i think that is immoral and just plain wrong. War is needed, just in the correct circumstances.
My well of ideas has run dry. so for the time being i will let the war with Barrett go. but as the terminator says, "i will be back." and next time i WILL win!
Ambiguous
War can be a rather difficult topic for us students to write; neither have we experienced war, nor do we know the exact circumstances surrounding the current wars. We get our perspectives of war from news outlets and the sort, not exactly the most accurate source of information, just saying before the essay.
Sure, it's easy to go on about how all wars are bad and that people shouldn't be killing other people. But say, when a certain dictator is ethnically purging 6 million people of a certain religion, should other countries sit back and try to negotiate peace through a lunch date? Of course not, because nothing else other than pure brute force could have stopped him.
Nothing on that level has occurred ever since, but many cases on a smaller level have. And as the laying back and sipping of tea didn't work back then, it certainly doesn't work now, when arms races and nuclear threats are knocking on the doorsteps. The recent assassination of Gaddafi highlights an example of when war is the quickest and most effective way to end a danger. The troops moved in, disposed of the target, and moved out, all while avoiding collateral damage.
But as many as there were wars necessary, far more wars were fought over trivial things and completely avoidable. Just look like the Middle East, where the people are raising their children to hate and kill each other. Why? Because they don't believe in the same man in the sky. And because that's what the man in the sky would supposedly want them to do.
There is no clear line dividing whether or not war is necessary. When the opposing side fails to attempt negotiation, war may be the way to go. But before that, understanding and toleration must be given a chance, for the future generations are sure to laugh at resorting to violence over something as petty as religion or race.
Sure, it's easy to go on about how all wars are bad and that people shouldn't be killing other people. But say, when a certain dictator is ethnically purging 6 million people of a certain religion, should other countries sit back and try to negotiate peace through a lunch date? Of course not, because nothing else other than pure brute force could have stopped him.
Nothing on that level has occurred ever since, but many cases on a smaller level have. And as the laying back and sipping of tea didn't work back then, it certainly doesn't work now, when arms races and nuclear threats are knocking on the doorsteps. The recent assassination of Gaddafi highlights an example of when war is the quickest and most effective way to end a danger. The troops moved in, disposed of the target, and moved out, all while avoiding collateral damage.
But as many as there were wars necessary, far more wars were fought over trivial things and completely avoidable. Just look like the Middle East, where the people are raising their children to hate and kill each other. Why? Because they don't believe in the same man in the sky. And because that's what the man in the sky would supposedly want them to do.
There is no clear line dividing whether or not war is necessary. When the opposing side fails to attempt negotiation, war may be the way to go. But before that, understanding and toleration must be given a chance, for the future generations are sure to laugh at resorting to violence over something as petty as religion or race.
War
I believe that war is a very subjective subject. It deals not only with a countries patriotism and loyalty but also to its dedication of citizens and morality. War should not be taken as a joke or taken lightly however it is sometimes necessary. A necessary evil that it times can help more than it can hurt. In addition I also believe that war can be morally correct. The prime example I have is for protection. Whether it is the protection of a people (friends, family, or love one) or rights/freedoms. I believe that when you are in danger or on a larger scale when your country is in danger it is necessary to protect them from this impending danger. This is whenwar is necessary. This is when war is morally correct. When war is about who has the bigger guns is when I find it totally unnecessary. As in the past 16th century or so when war was a common occurrence based on either money, power, and women. However nowadays this is no longer the case is not as it was then. It seems as if war is taken much more seriously and not just used to shoe whose boss. Nowadays we use money to show our power.