the love for war

[danyboy27]

War exist since millenia, we human seem to love to kill each other verry much it seem. Even a healthy number of people that dont like war somehow love something related to a form of struggle or combat: politics, sports, firearms, video game.

It seem to be something that dont discriminate person gender or race, from africa to the western world to europe to to asia and the middle east, people somehow enjoy a lot of things that are related to a form of war, has i mentionned earlier, stuff like sports, video game are now global, and it kinda forge our spirits since forever.

I am verry confused myself about this, personally i dont support wars verry much, if it can be avoided, that a good thing, i seriously mean it, but god i love videogames, firearms, sports, explosions. I know war is an horrible thing, who didnt?

Is it it our nature to enjoy conflict? I seriously think that without conflicts, the world would be fucking boring, i am not talking about military conflict, but anthing else related, like political struggle, and sports, competition between film maker to come up with a better film, struggle between thinker to come up with a better invention.

I dont want to link it to any left/right politics wharsover btw, i just wanna discuss about it Quietly, i dont wanna troll capitalists or communists, and i dont want you to fight about your political system over that thing!
i want your personal idea and feeling about that in general, that all!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I very much see what you mean; the majority of my books, computer games, drawings, and so on have a military or quasi-military theme to them. While I don't like imperialism, I do enjoy reading about the latest military toys and gadgets as they're fascinating pieces of engineering, often with important civilian applications - the internet, the Apollo programme (and a lot of space technology in general), nuclear energy, and many others have their roots firmly intertwined with military technology.

You can see this principle in effect even when the military types are depicted as the bad guys in fiction - they get all the coolest gear; for example in Star Wars the Galactic Empire gets stuff like Death Stars, Super Star Destroyers, Sun Crushers, Galaxy Guns and World Devastators. What do the Rebellion get? A poxy rag-tag fleet of odds and ends. I can't help but think that the only reason they win is because the God of Plot demands they do so.

[Dust Bunnies]

Well, we realize that a game is not real killing. For many, there is a great feeling of victory. Whether it is victory in a debate, a sport, or in "fragging" another player. One of the greatest feelings of victory is a struggle against another being that can think. A sense of achievement.

Rarely has war ever been loved, it has only been thought of as epic or dramatic was the Victorian era, pre-Napoleon. We do not have that same mentality, but if such a thing as Human Nature exists, the feeling of victory is hardcoded into us, and triumphing over that 1337 veteran of your favorite shooter gives a much greater thrill than finally being able to organize a very messy binder.

[Plagueround]

You can see this principle in effect even when the military types are depicted as the bad guys in fiction - they get all the coolest gear; for example in Star Wars the Galactic Empire gets stuff like Death Stars, Super Star Destroyers, Sun Crushers, Galaxy Guns and World Devastators. What do the Rebellion get? A poxy rag-tag fleet of odds and ends. I can't help but think that the only reason they win is because the God of Plot demands they do so.

Wrong. They win because they have the greatest tactical mastermind of all time:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/phobosblack/trap.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wrong. They win because they have the greatest tactical mastermind of all time:http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/phobosblack/trap.jpg

Erm, I can't see images on photobucket et al. So I don't know who you're talking about. :confused:

[Plagueround]

Erm, I can't see images on photobucket et al. So I don't know who you're talking about. :confused:

Awwww...

...It's a picture of Admiral Ackbar. :D

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think you get a kind of macho war fetish brought on often by patrotic wankers.

An important thing to reamber about video games and films is that war and combat is really exsisting. You have the element of danger an element of fighting against the odds and a stratigic element. It is also great for reliving stress for instance i have been known at the end of a very stressful day to go onto the internet and play a game which involves cutting somones skin off and then chainsawing there face open.

Its great stress relief. Although its importent that people are made aware that war is shitty and all of this crappy "big brave soilder hero" stuff has to go.

Put it this way the problem is that both a construction worker and a soilder risk there lives but which one is honored as if the sun shone out of their arse and which one is helpful.

[danyboy27]

has i said earlier i didnt wanted to put politics into this but eh, it seem i didnt put the character big enough to make everybody read.

i dont love war, nobody does, perhaps like 2% of the world population does.

struggles and combat-like sports and entertainement exist in ALL countries in the world, In afghanistan there is that violent sport where they drag a dead sheep has a ball, its violent yet they find it verry entertaining, and i am sure people who does that hate that too. tribes in Africa got many struggle-type ritual, things that define who the best in the tribe, they got those ritualistic combats where they compete to be the chief of the town, and yet they still fucking hate genocide and war. In some South american countries they make snake and dogs kill each other in some sort of fights, and i am sure they are really pissed off of the war down here too.

The way i perceive that is, war is somehow a symptom or side effect of all that, Sure there is other things that cause war, but if we could go inside the human minds from the verry begining its ours love for struggle related things that somehow make countries kill each others. Has i mentionned i dont believe this is the root cause of all war, there is other factors too.

I mean, even you communists, you are preaching for a class struggle, bring down the capitalist regimes! this is a struggle, and i am sure you are enjoying it, its a fight, you feel that you need to beat the other system, its a challenge, and a big one!

Has i mentionned earlier I DONT WANT FUCKING PARTISAN POLITICS TO RUIN THIS TOPIC!
I DONT PREACH CAPITALISTS VALUES IN THERE, (I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT A TREAT TO YOUR IDEOLOGY) I JUST WANT TO HAVE YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT!
is that big enough?:(

[RGacky3]

Thats an interesting point you bring up, and its true, almost every culture has a Macho side to it, most males grow up having some type of macho side as well, which is why young men and boys tend to get in fights all around the world.

Now that being said, if you look at any boys fascination with violence, its generally not just violence for violence sake, its almost always a hero, honorable, robinhood mentality, in some cases that is over took by the Capitalist self-serving metality. But generally its the macho viewpoint of being a type of principled hero standing up to someone.

War is'nt that, war is violence for the benefit of what ultimately are global bullies, but people are generally made to think that war is principled and the such.

I think if channeled correctly, there is nothing wrong with the macho mentality, I think its a natural male emotion, and if channeled constructively it can be positive, also its not just about violence, if you look closer, its ultimately about dignity and self-worth, most men value dignity and self-worth (as do women, but generally women value themselves differently), and unfortunately in a Capitalist society, which strips people of their dignity and self-worth, by ultimately reducing them to cogs in a machine, that macho part of men is geared toward violence

[Comrada J]

It's biological and natural. That said it's an impulse. Where as empathy, on the other hand , doesn't always come naturally. Once I had trouble coming to terms with this, like you the partisan attitudes greatly annoy me but unfortunately, thats how the world works. Thats my general feeling on it; a sicking truth that you must come to terms with.


But generally its the macho viewpoint of being a type of principled hero standing up to someone.
Thats how they try and justify it. Logic seems to be a secondary thing in conflict...unless it comes to weapons R&D...

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's innately apart of human neurology, but aggressive behavior is more of a response to external stimuli, based on our evolutionary need to reproduce and survive.

It's clear that as it becomes easier to survive (through social and scientific advance), 'war' becomes less of a necessity.

[Bud Struggle]

This, I think, is another case of Communists redefining human nature to fit some idealitic standards that must be met in order for Communism to work.

There's that "all work together" side of Communism--yet always there is Che or Fidel in "uniform." There's the Soviet "parades." There's the talk of Revolution and barricades.

Communism doesn't have a "peaceful birth" into this world--it comes with throwing down the old order and taking over the factories. Disposing of the Borgeoise. A violent beginning doesn't bode well for a peaceful aftermath.

I think people are in general--violent creatures. They can be civilized, I mean we all are (for the most part,) but our countries aren't. Countries are at war all the time--maybe it's the really violent people that rise to the top in politics? EVERY country has an army, and maybe that's how they sift off the really violent people among us--so the rest of us can have a peaceful life. The "go to jail or join the army" mentality.

I think one of the success of Capitalism is that it can deal with this situation pretty nicely. I'm not so sure about socialism.

"After the Revolution" are you still going to want your killer video games? If so--than you have a problem, because some people won't be content with just playing games.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

EVERY country has an army,

HA! WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

(im nitpicking here)



"After the Revolution" are you still going to want your killer video games? If so--than you have a problem, because some people won't be content with just playing games.



Yeah im sure there will be some loony with a knife who goes around stabbing people. He will end up in jail or shot.

[Bud Struggle]

HA! WRONG! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

(im nitpicking here) DAAAAaaaa

You actually make my point. 99% of these countries that have armies don't need them for defense. They are just "doing something" with the more violent people of their society, the ones not placated by video games.


Yeah im sure there will be some loony with a knife who goes around stabbing people. He will end up in jail or shot.

I think there are lots of violent people, most are thugs but some are geniuses (Hitler, Napoleon, etc. [not meaning genius in any good way]).

[Edit] Great topic Spet!

[danyboy27]

is there anyway to keep partisan politics out of it?

Seriously...please!
tanks aboeut the topic tom!

[Bud Struggle]

is there anyway to keep partisan politics out of it?

Seriously...please!

OK. It's a question of keeping thugs and heros out of history. They are the fighters, not you or me.

FWIW: It's all history has been made up up to now.

[danyboy27]

OK. It's a question of keeping thugs and heros out of history. They are the fighters, not you or me.

FWIW: It's all history has been made up up to now.


i wanted to keep politics out of this beccause i firlmly believe that its not an issue that could pose problem to capitalism or communism.

back to the main topic, i think this is not a macho thing, There is an increasing number of women going in the military, women are getting somehow attracted to more challenging work such has buisness, where there is constant struggle, professional sports and politics. Seriously, womens got an edge when it come to struggle for something, they may not be has brutal has we are but they are sure determined to win. The Soviet had a lot of women in their military, and the Farcs, and The cuban army.

so, has i said, its not a political issue, its more a philosophical or entropoligical issue.

But the more i think about it the more i think war is a side effect, its how we should manage that side effect together.
Just pretend like the U.N that there will be no war and that war should be stop is somehow a fairy tale, beccause in order to make it TOTALLY stop we would be forced to destroy the verry roots of all societies on earths, brainwash the world, all that shit.
I know if sound utopian, but if war was reglemented like sports, Countries that want to dispute each other beccause of a territory dispute or something should send 10 000 men each in a proper place like a forest with relatively Equivalent gear and the best won that it. Technological giant would be forced to put their efforts on other things than war, since the gear will be reglemented. I know its utopian, but at the end that the more decent way to manage that side effect, or at least that what i am thinking right now.

[Killfacer]

Are you saying all wars should be turned into 20,000 man fights? Would that not make wars so small and not particuarly devestating that they would occur all the time. Palestine would invade America and could well win.

[Bear MacMillan]

I haven't heard of many people who enjoy current world conflicts, but I know MANY who idealize past conflicts, specifically WWI and WWII. This is probably because when you're living during the same time period as say; the Vietnam war, you see daily what the conflict is like, and the "Good v Evil" factor is blurred and the two sides look easily compairable. But 20 odd years down the line, you get the "I wish I was born early so I could've fought in Vietnam!" kind of people who think that way because the only sources they get are the media who portray the conflict in a certain light, and haven't witnessed what actually happened. It's not the individual's fault, its the media's.

I think many "anti-revisionists", and leftists in general are more guilty of this mentality then they'd like to admit (for example "I wish I was alive to fight in the Great Patriotic War/Spanish Civil War! etc..) War is a terrible, terrible thing, and there is no point idealizing it. Period. I'm not saying violence is something that should be avoided all together for example, revolution, but I think many leftists idealize war much more than they should.

Here in Canada it is obvious that WWI and II are idealized to the point where the Canadian is the intellegent, courageous fighter, the German is the inhuman monster and the American and Brit are bumbling fools. Nothing could be further from the truth; just because you were born in a certain country doesn't make you anymore adept at warfare than anyone else. This kind of idealization tries to make a country relevant in the world stage for something that individual soldiers (and not the country) did almost a hundred years ago.

[Labor Shall Rule]

This, I think, is another case of Communists redefining human nature to fit some idealitic standards that must be met in order for Communism to work.

There's that "all work together" side of Communism--yet always there is Che or Fidel in "uniform." There's the Soviet "parades." There's the talk of Revolution and barricades.

Communism doesn't have a "peaceful birth" into this world--it comes with throwing down the old order and taking over the factories. Disposing of the Borgeoise. A violent beginning doesn't bode well for a peaceful aftermath.

I think people are in general--violent creatures. They can be civilized, I mean we all are (for the most part,) but our countries aren't. Countries are at war all the time--maybe it's the really violent people that rise to the top in politics? EVERY country has an army, and maybe that's how they sift off the really violent people among us--so the rest of us can have a peaceful life. The "go to jail or join the army" mentality.

I think one of the success of Capitalism is that it can deal with this situation pretty nicely. I'm not so sure about socialism.

"After the Revolution" are you still going to want your killer video games? If so--than you have a problem, because some people won't be content with just playing games.

Tom, you should ask why and who make countries 'violent', and back that up with a material reason explaining why.

The U.S. relies on the global appropriation of raw materials and cheap labor to make sure cheap consumer products are flowing in - this means a systematic program of violence is necessary to preserve such a relationship. But Americans aren't genetically 'aggressive' - it has to do with the social system that is in place. Children are taught that cowboy colonizers are 'heroes' (while natives, by comparison, are barbaric), that violence is good if sanctioned by the U.S. state, and that cops are out there to protect us.

If the social system were to change, then new revolutionary social norms would have to take the place of patriarchal, racist, and other reactionary ideas. The gross imitation of civilian-killing in Grand Theft Auto, or horrific films such as Saw or Hostel (which really is unnecessarily disgusting) will be
questioned.

[danyboy27]

seriously man, this is pissing me off, its gonna be the last time,
no fucking partisan opinion
god damnit!
i just wanna talk about the way you see that, there is no need to bash someone else 3 post ago, or at least no need in this tread, i just want to know your opinion, there is no right or wrong here, just opinion, so its pointless to bash each other until this topic is completly ruined, has it happen often in the IO. If someone argues again about politics, i swear the god, i am gonna do everything to close this topic. I dont want people looking for how capitalism/communism is wrong, i am looking for your opinion on this!!!!

[Dean]

seriously man, this is pissing me off, its gonna be the last time,
no fucking partisan opinion
god damnit!
i just wanna talk about the way you see that, there is no need to bash someone else 3 post ago, or at least no need in this tread, i just want to know your opinion, there is no right or wrong here, just opinion, so its pointless to bash each other until this topic is completly ruined, has it happen often in the IO. If someone argues again about politics, i swear the god, i am gonna do everything to close this topic. I dont want people looking for how capitalism/communism is wrong, i am looking for your opinion on this!!!!
Cool down. You can't ask for people to talk about a political topic without them making it a left/right issue. You asked about why people like war. Any response to that will be framed politically.

If you want a less political discussion, ask a less political question. For instance, you could ask what psychological facotrs drive people to support war. Even just framing it in a way which lends itself to less politcal responses will help.

[danyboy27]

if you read my verry first post you will see that its not particulary about war but about struggle, confrontation all that stuff, on a much more broader context, including sports politics and other domain, this is not intended to be about politics but about the human itself and its enjoyement of various stuff related to confrontation and struggles, perhaps my topic title was misleading.

i always considered war has a side effect of that verry pleasure we have to enjoy stuff like football, paintball, electoral campaign, space race, technological competition etc.

war is bad mmmkay
http://www.youthink.com/quiz_images/quiz1262outcome4.gif

[Bud Struggle]

Cool down. You can't ask for people to talk about a political topic without them making it a left/right issue. You asked about why people like war. Any response to that will be framed politically.

If you want a less political discussion, ask a less political question. For instance, you could ask what psychological facotrs drive people to support war. Even just framing it in a way which lends itself to less politcal responses will help.

Indeed. My thoughts have always been that society's MAIN function was to control ruthless men. They come up out of no where and they seek to control. Some (Napoleon) are better than others (me) but laws--constitutions--customs--religion are ther to control people that would take over.

Would you or anyone you know ever have invaded Iraq? It's almost an idiotic question. But there's men out ther that would and they rise to power and the rules, in this case, weren't good enough to stop them. Maybe next time we would have learned something and there will be a rule of law for that.

I see the world as a pretty frightening place--and neither Communism of capitalism could really control it.

[RGacky3]

My thoughts have always been that society's MAIN function was to control ruthless men. They come up out of no where and they seek to control. Some (Napoleon) are better than others (me) but laws--constitutions--customs--religion are ther to control people that would take over.


It depends waht you mean by society, if you mean human relations, then its not for anything, its natural, we are social creatures.

Now institutions, such as laws, and the such are not there 'for' anything specific, their functions depend on the goals of the persons, or people inplementing it. For example throughout much of history religion has been around to satisfy humans spiritual nature, but organized religion many times was created by some to control people through that spiritual nature.

The fact is, Historically, rulership and power was ALWAYS, for the sake of the ruler and powerful, not to stop brutality or whatever.

[Bud Struggle]

It depends waht you mean by society, if you mean human relations, then its not for anything, its natural, we are social creatures. Yea, I should have made myself more clear. I meant government, social rules, religion.


but organized religion many times was created by some to control people through that spiritual nature. true--but it also controled ruthless men. It controled kings and princes--who ruled my devine right as vassals of God--meaning they had to behave in reasonable ways to their subjects. Not to say that it was perfect or that it was always good--but I see religion and social conventions limiting the ability of princes to be ruthless and vandalize their subjects.


The fact is, Historically, rulership and power was ALWAYS, for the sake of the ruler and powerful, not to stop brutality or whatever.

I see it as the opposite. I see religion in the past and now modern democracy as limiting the control that ruthless men could have in society. I see a dictator like Hitler--not constrained by ANY spiritual or political force to be the truly modern leader. I think there are plenty of men out there similar to him, half the world is ruled by dictators of one sort of another--maybe not as ruthless, but that's only because they don't have the means.

I think this is the history of the world:


That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[RGacky3]

true--but it also controled ruthless men. It controled kings and princes--who ruled my devine right as vassals of God--meaning they had to behave in reasonable ways to their subjects. Not to say that it was perfect or that it was always good

No it did'nt, it put ruthless men in power, and gave them the ability to be more ruthless, it did'nt control anything. Remember the middle ages? It was USED by ruthless men to get more power.


I see it as the opposite. I see religion in the past and now modern democracy as limiting the control that ruthless men could have in society. I see a dictator like Hitler--not constrained by ANY spiritual or political force to be the truly modern leader. I think there are plenty of men out there similar to him, half the world is ruled by dictators of one sort of another--maybe not as ruthless, but that's only because they don't have the means.


Modern "democracy", was not put there to limit control, it was put there, to keep control, to keep the masses from taking over power. No one put it there for the leaders, the leaders put it there to stop an uprising, historically thast true for almost all the cases.

Hitler just replaced religion with race.