I was just talking about the definition of the word.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Sure the Earth might not be in a great shape but it could be far far worse.

Why? War is generally bad for the majority but good for a specific minority.
Peace is generally good for the majority and can be less beneficial for a specific minority.

Human beings don't like peace, otherwise we would make more compromises to maintain it.

The only way I can think of peace being bad is for financial reasons. For governments. Peace and war don't just occur because humans just "make a choice" to have peace or to start a war. It's a bunch of different things that happen that will lead up to a peace or war coming about. If money and power were out of the equation I could think of no minorities that would not choose peace, unless psychopathy was still in the world. But the world is too complex to think of peace and war as just choices. They are outcomes.

You make a good point. I agree with what you're saying

That's 100% correct from a purely logical basis. The only thing that war succeeds in doing is transporting nutrients to desert areas in the form of dead bodies, much like bees germinate flowers as they move along to collect pollen. Population control & Environmental rejuvenation.

War is just ugly... it is so bad... it puts thing in spiraling vortex and sucks the life out of people. I hated it but I would do it again because it's all about the mission...not me.

We aren't the cause of conflict, we only make observations of the truth. Speaking about war in a different way doesn't really matter at all. If we change the way we speak, it doesn't change the fact that people are dying in other countries, I think that's a bit off the mark.

Talking about conflict doesn't cause it. If we went to the extreme and stopped talking about war completely then that's the same as pretending it doesn't exist.

@Lancer -- I can't believe you missed the point by so much. Changing the way one speaks to a more reasonable line is not intended to end war or misery directly. It is intended to change the person doing it so they won't be as prone to participate and/or perpetuate such behavior. I will grant you that it would take more than just a few to cause any substantive change in the world, but isn't that worth the effort?

I understand that you intent. But regardless of how we talk about war, it will not indirectly influence a persons mentality significantly enough to cause them to change. I understand you are talking about small changes to spread over a large number of people but the fact remains that no matter how much we convince people to aim for peace. We will always end up with war.

This is why what you are saying won't work. It is habitual for human beings to engage in conflict. War is just the climax of such action.

Your approach is very pragmatic and probably one of the most accurate comments I've seen so far

You realize as well that everyone else would be doing the same, right? We'd have genuine clashes of the Titans, but I think after a while, even the Titans would realize the folly and stop taking steroids.

@evidentialist LOL

@FortyTwo - Now that's a pleasant thought. Thanks. I will begin digging my bunker tomorrow.

I could imagine countries abandoning their research on firearms and attempting to create a Chuck Norris - Steven Seagal hybrid to defeat their enemies.

Then there'd be a face-off between America's hybrid and Russia's Putin/Lenin hybrid. Germany would create a karl marx / hittler hybrid.

World war 3 in a 1 v 1 v 1 3 way of humanities strongest.

The the words uttered in the audience would be "Whoever wins, we lose..."

I voted the same, as humans would still need some way to vent their differences - imagined, or otherwise !

Good job to both of you. I was hoping someone would come up with something new

I too wish for a day when we as a society focus on scientific research and promote morals & values consistent with maintaining peace between each other.

The military isn't the problem. They are a means to an end.
The problem is war mongering politicians who pay people to start a war and send their countries children to fight and die, killing the children of other nations.

Politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush are no better than common Warlords in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The military doesn't do anything unless the government tells them to do it. I trust the military way more than I trust any government. Soldiers don't want to go to war, they don't want to kill. They are forced to because politicians want to sell guns, ammunition, vehicles, oil, etc.

Warriors just want to protect their people. Politicians just want to protect their assets.

Hear! Hear! Brother.

Hence why I would never be a soldier. I have no problem fighting to protect my loved ones, but fighting in a foreign country under the guise of "defense" or "peace keeping" is just plain wrong. My country only has a defense force and yet we have overseas military bases. How does that make sense?

Not attacking you. Just using a rhetorical question. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I just sounded a bit aggressive in that last part.

I agree with what you say. There is a very specific reason that human beings have not been able to abstain from warfare.

I like to think that peacetime isn't any better or worse than wartime for some people. In war there is death and destruction, in peace there is death & destruction. The only difference is that in peace we can rebuild faster than people can kill or destroy. Which is why it isn't much of a problem.

Part of that is because basically we are great apes. We are a collection of various size troupes and various members of the troupe want to be in charge. Civilization is in many ways a very thin veneer. Many people do not like to think or admit that we are really just animals. And overall human behavior points this out pretty well I think.