The best way to avoid war? Abolish governments and stop organizing societies around violence.

Well, way before governments were a thing, humans were already killing each other for territories, ect.

Governments kind of avoid that by creating a global defensive mechanism in which everyone needs everyone, so if a country completely collapses, it will cause huge trouble in the neighboring vicinity.

Well, way before governments were a thing, humans were already killing each other for territories, ect.

This^

War (Or at-least organized violence) predates government. There's no reason to believe ending government will eliminate war.

What is evil? Is it a fact set in stone, which classifies us by our actions in due accordance? Or is it an idea concocted by man, to control the masses by infringing upon them the thoughts of one?

What's justice? Whose justice is true justice? Why must one keep from doing what he thinks is just because another has power over him? Justice. It is so abstract, yet so important to humanity. Without it, we perhaps might have never traveled down the path of advancement. Yet because of justice, we have killed each other to prove what is just. Yes, the ones who determine what is just are the winners.

But is this fair? This way of deciding what is justice, is it just? To the winners, it is just, but to the subdued, the defeated, the shamed, it is evil.

But the more important question is: Does anyone care?

~Me

Most of us in the modernized world can agree that war is atrocious, but when one thing happens that one nation doesn't particularly like, it all of a sudden becomes necessary. We have seen it so much throughout history and before history that I wonder if it is actually a part of our nature.

let not forget that this year among all recorded history has the lowest war deaths, most peaceful time and so forth

Folk have been organizing themselves through violence for most of history and prehistory. A tribe is run by a tribal government, it's not like they get a free pass because they jump around in loincloths with spear in hand.

Governments fight for land and resources, don't act like the folk of one geographic area just decide to kill another group of folk for something, they're thrown into war by a government, be it fascistic in nature like the US or tribalistic like the Zulu.

Folk join the military for a reason: They don't want to be governed by another government. And guess what, this doesn't fix anything, it ends up either in you being governed by the same rulers or being governed by another set of rulers, it ends in the same product: You being ruled over.

You want to stop being attacked? Be ungovernable.

get your anarchist bullshit outta here

if u got a pot of gold and u being the hermit that u are live in the woods all by urself

guess wat gonna happen. some organized government is gonna put a bullet in ur head and take that pot of gold

u still gonna get ur ass attacked

u know why??? cus wars are fought over resources nd power jut like u said!!

Edited 4/29/2016 02:47:10

Wars are fought by governments, yes. No governments, no war.

let go to ur hermit fantasy

u got 5 ppl called the WACO tribe

u got another 5 ppl called the CONFEDERATE tribe

u followin?

the 5 ppl organize cus it better to chill together and fight together? why cus collectively u get to survive togethr

the confederate tribe got some yummy slave. so wat do? u take ur gun and SHOOT them all and take da slave

this da basis of war

government or not

if u had 2 armed gangs fight each other u could tht a war

cus they fighting for something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited 4/29/2016 02:52:54

War is a condition of humanity.

No, it's a continuation of what our violent monkey forerunners did before us, along with flinging poop at each other as a mating rite. I wouldn't mind so much if we still flinged poop at each other, but taking lives away is unacceptable and folk who willingly do so are filth. I'd say that most folk would like to avoid violence, rather than be in it, and very many folk get by without being violent.

While we should seek to minimize it, it will happen

There has not been a justified war in the last 100 years, from the bloody communists in Russia and China, to bloody fascists in France, to ideologically-themed wars in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea. When a foe will purposely shoot at your borders, and plan to shoot everyone behind your borders, it would be more of a justification, but it's still not. The government must sign a peace deal, pride be damned, insuring that human life is kept, and not thrown away for the red barf we call government. In the First World War, Germany gave both Luxemburg and Belgium an ultimatum: to allow German military transit, or to be invaded militarily. Luxemburg was the much better government about this, but unluckily held less: they didn't care about national pride, and let the Germans go through, leaving the country fully free from damage in the war. Some Luxemburgers were drafted in the German army, but it was only late in the war that this happened, and porbably much lower than what it would be if Luxemburg took the violent and proud path, like Belgium. Belgium, with its national pride, chose to fight and so became one of the most wrecked sites in the war; only Poland and Serbia had more bloodloss. Later, Belgian partisan fighters, "proud" of their country, and defending it, made Germany ruin Belgium through harsh military rule to discourage partisanry. Mass civilian executions, all since a king wanted his "national pride".

we should be ready and willing to win. Only by being unbeatable can we deter others from attacking us.

If everyone thinks like this, everyone will lose. And the way to become unbeatable is to have no countries to fight. If Russia and Ukraine were one country, then there'd be no bloodshed over disputed regions, no politic strife, no second Holodmor in Ukraine from Russian sanctions. If Armenia and Azerbaijan joined together, there would be no loss of life over Artsakh, with each side disgustingly boasting and overestimating about how many they killed, but a peaceful union.

If everyone wants to be unbeatable, do you think anyone will be?

And it is better to be feared than loved.

It is better for a stable government, maybe. It's awful for the folk. If you speak out against ruthless, pointless, filthy, governmental bloodshed, you'll be a filthy Jew and sent to the poorest lands of your country, and killed in a pogrom if you complain twice. These Jews got their revenge in the Russian Revolution, when they shot the tsar and his family and their friends, and making a new, even more violent, dictator, Vladimir "Lenin" Ulyanov ("Hang no fewer than one hundred known nobles, rich men, and other bloodsuckers."). But his mission might have been the most justified, it was a bloody way, but perhaps the ends would make the means right. A taxless stewardship instead of government? Folk actually helping folk? Sounds great to me, and it might be worth a few lives killed. It's certainly better than whatever the bloodier First World War was trying to "achieve". Then Stalin went even more so into this. Polishphobia and fear of spies led to a killing or imprisoning all Poles that "where they shouldn't be", and later, just total paranoia. And he was unbeatable. The Germans came in the "rotten build" and they lost terribly. And militarisation only grew in his evil reign. Now, he is one of the most liked figures in Russia, for his stable reign, though noone would like to live in it. He stands for power in a windy time. Then you've British killing and torturing innocent folk as part of "collective punishment", and if you spoke against this, congratulations for your sacrifice, you're going to die. Then the CIA will send you to Poland to be tortured if you speak out against America, and try to kill Snowden, along with the efforts of the CIA and FBI.

And even then, folk who were feared, like Nicolae Ceaușescu, who tried to violently and towards the end, build a pathetic atmosphere of patriotism and kill all those who didn't, you know what happened to him? Shot up a week off Christmas, along with his wife, by those folk he tried to silence.

Don't be for authoritarianism unless you have lived somewhere like Ceaușescu Romania, or Mashriq. I talk about the CIA, but that's angelic and anarchic contrasted to these fellows.

Peace should be used only to prepare for war.

"If our country is worth dying for in times of war, then it must truly be worth living for in times of peace.". Anyhow, that's not what the imperialist countries are doing. America has a crappy air defence and core weapon system along with a past of false flag attacks, but still finds time to be near the Spartly islands, and make another refugee in Mashriq, or worse, to kill them. Russia's sure as hell got a crappy military, too, but still finds time to also be in Syria and Ukraine?

You are for militarism. Again, don't say this. America's bad about this, relative to countries today (3%), but it's far better than Eritrea (20%), where they shoot you if you try to leave and try to fund mafia and sometimes Islamist extremists in Ethiopia and where Ethiopia does the same to Eritrea, and they spend all this money they have on military forces, while roughly half of both countries' populations are literally starving to death. I left Eritrea, but while I was there, I definitely could not speak about this in the public life. What the police do there, and the secret police, it's truly awful. It's rated to have worse press freedom than Choson by Reporters Without Borders.

A bloody, inconclusive border war with Eritrea and Ethiopia, two countries in which most folk were already literally starving, goes unnoticed by America, but a war between Iraq and its strategic ally, Kuwait, means it's time to "peacekeep", or "shield Kuwait's international sovereignty".
---
Donald Trump is for "total war", making it policy to target family members and friends of foes of America.

when one thing happens that one nation doesn't particularly like, it all of a sudden becomes necessary.

It doesn't become necessary, but a government finds an excuse to bloat it's economy through fascist-kind of profitable military spending. The Syrian Arab Republic definitely is justified for war against the Masrhiq, its war is really defensive (against the Mashriq). But China, America, Russia, Iran? Get the fuck out, you disgusting militaristic empires.

Also, this post was inspired, I saw some Romanian nationalists and Italian patriot talking about the First World War. (Paraphrasing)

"Wow, Romania rejoined on the day before the war ended, Nov. 10... 'I knew we could defeat Germany, blokes!'"
"Hey, don't insult Romania, we greatly helped the Allies, but unluckily, the Russians betrayed us and left us nearly defenceless."
"Italy fights for 22 months and gets some of Istria and Trentino. Romania fights for 8 and gets Transilavania and Moldova?"
"Fuck you, Romania won in three battles against Germany, and we were fighting against Hungary and Germany, and we won in battles against Hungary, too, and meantime Italy, it does nothing." (I wonder how many battles they lost?)

This disgusting patriotism, just fully not caring that there were soldiers who were sent from their families to die, by the bullet of the foe soldier, and by the government that commanded them, and they just talk about what side did more, and some irredentism. And bragging about how many they killed.

Some folk don't like how countries boycotted the 75th anniversary of May 7 in Russia. But I say it's just a purely politic happening, where Russia gets to play the "past card" and say "hey, we saved Europe, about 5 times, this one the most recent, so Russian country pretty cool, if you didn't know, and Putin is our leader now, so he's cool by assocication"."

Edit: https://youtu.be/-ucjJ7SQ5eY?t=36m4s (explains well the beginning of the First World War, the whole serie is spectacular, but this bit in particular. There're English subtitles)

Edited 4/29/2016 04:01:21

Xapy,about your question('I wonder how many battles they lost?') , well...
1916
>Battle of Transilvania-initial victory, then Central Powers counterattack, we retreat in Carpathian Passes
->Battle of Selimber-Romanian victory
->Battle of Orsova-Romanian Victory
->Battle of Sibiu-German Victory
->Battle of Brasov-German Victory
->Battle of Merisor-Petrosani-Central Victory
->Battle of Praid-Sovata-Central victory.Last Romanian action in Transilvania
>Battle of Turtucaia-Bulgarian-German-Turkish victory.One(if not the only )of the worst battles during the Romanian campaign )
>Battle in the Passes-Romanian victories in Moldovian and some Muntenian passes , Centrals victory in one of them.
->Battle of Prahova Valley-Romanian victory
->Battle of Bran-Campulung-Romanian victory
->Battle of the Olt Valley-Romanian victory
->First Battle of Oituz-Romanian victory
->Battle of Vulcan Pass-Romanian victory(Erwin Rommel is present here with the Württemberg Mountain Company)
->First Battle of Jiu Valley-Romanian Victory
->Second Battle of Jiu Valley-Centrals Victory.Finnaly they found a way to enter in Romania
>Battle of Dobrich-Bulgarian victory
>First Battle of Cobadin-Romanian-Russian victory
>Flamanda Offensive-Centrals victory, despite of the initial Romanian succes
>Second Battle of Cobadin-Centrals victory
>Battle of Severin-Central victory
>Battle of Arges-Central victory
>Battle of Bucharest-Central victory, Romanian capital moved to Iasi.
>Prunaru Charge-Central victory, but this is one of the most daring actions of the Romanian Army in the First War , being the biggest cavalry charge during the campaign .
>Battle of Cricov-Ialomita-Central victory
>Battle of Ramnicul Sarat-Central victory
>Battle of Tulcea-Central victory
>Battle of Focsani-Central victory
>Battle of Siret River-Romanian-Russian victory

1917
>Battle of Pralea-Romanian victory
>Battle of Marasti-Romanian victory
>Battle of Marasesti-Romanian victory
>Second Battle of Oituz(or 3rd, cause another one took place in 1916)-Romanian victory
(these 3 were known as the ''Romanian Marne'' )

1918
>Battle of Bessarabia-Romanian victory against the bolsheviks, military ocupation of the region, 2 months later, Bessarabia unites with Romania
->Battles of Galati,Pascani, Spataresti,Mihaileni,etc... -Conflicts with bolshevik movements in Romanian territory.
>Khotin Uprising-Romanian victory against the bolsheviks

As a result,
->14 Romanian victories (17 if i put the battles with bolsheviks )
->18 Romanian loses
->535,706 dead,wounded, captured,missing,diseased, alongside with 50,000 russians, 3,000 dead and 6,000 wounded serbians, 500 transilvanians
-> while the Central's lost: 125,000 germans,79,000 austro-hungarians,31,000 bulgarians and 20,000 turks
->May 1918: Central Powers victory, Treaty of Bucharest.Romania lost 2/3 territory, but gained Bessarabia in March 1918
->November 1918: Allied victory, Treaty of Versailles.Romania unites with Bukovina and Transilvania.
Great Romania finaly formed.(and this was the main reason why Romania joined the war)
->Another conflict , Hungarian–Romanian War(1919-1920), cause of Transilvania.Romanian victory, end of the Hungarian Republic of Councils.

A bit long and maybe got far from inital idea, but this can explain a lot.

I meant it is better to be feared by other states, not your people.

Where is the difference? States cannot feel emotions, only people :P

well some people can't feel emotions either sadly..

Wars are fought by governments, yes. No governments, no war.

I'll never understand anarchist logic. Do you honestly think if we abolished all governments people around the world would join hands and start living in peace with each other?

The reason governments tend to be violent and greedy is because people tend to be violent and greedy. Government, at-least, can be regulated through various means if set up correctly. Without government you are utterly at the mercy of your fellow man with no higher power to intervene if fellow man decides to abuse you.

Edited 4/29/2016 12:10:46

Governments cannot be regulated, they are monopolies of violence that can violate anything. They already violate the regulations set forth upon them, there's no proper way to keep a eye on them.

With government, you are at the mercy of a group of hired killers. Godspeed, because no ones going to save you from them, so you're probably going to die in a hole in Poland or Cuba.

If folk wanted to kill each other all the time, you'd most likely be dead and buried somewhere. Or a dead body on the streets. People aren't naturally violent, easy to fool, but not violent. If they were , murders would be way more commonplace and the population would be lower.

Most governments are not as evil as you say. Governments that murder their own citizens for no reason don't tend to last nearly as long as the ones who don't. There's a reason why the more developed countries today have gravitated towards a democratic system.

Regardless, you still haven't told me how anarchy would be any better. I might not trust government, but I sure as heck don't trust a lot of humans out there either. If I have to make a choice between a government which MIGHT abuse me in a rare scenario, or people who WILL abuse me if the checks and balances are removed, I'll take the government.

If folk wanted to kill each other all the time, you'd most likely be dead and buried somewhere. Or a dead body on the streets. People aren't naturally violent, easy to fool, but not violent. If they were , murders would be way more commonplace and the population would be lower.

Every day I turn on the news and hear about somebody who got shot for no reason in some part of St. Louis. Not all humans are naturally violent, but some are, and those some have to be kept in check somehow or else they'll just keep killing and killing.

Edited 4/29/2016 12:25:33