3 ms·

> You seem incapable of discussing this issue in it's entirety. You yourself said it's "too complex", so by your own admission, everyone is. Also, it's kind o

> You seem incapable of discussing this issue in it's entirety. You yourself said it's "too complex", so by your own admission, everyone is. Also, it's kind of silly to say war against an oppressor, or for independence is good, without realizing that without an oppressor, it would not be necessary in the first place. E.g. while I am glad that the allies defeated Hitler, I am also aware that without his initial atrocities, that would not have been necessary. Same for fighting against the British.

ZenPro 12y ago
>> Also, it's kind of silly to say war against an oppressor, or for independence is good, without realizing that without an oppressor, it would not be necessary in the first place. That is patently false. An oppressor may be an oppressor in absence due to resource scarcity and competition. They may not directly oppress the societal group attempting to take action against the perceived oppression. Also, oppression is not war. War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors. It is generally characterised by extreme violence, social disruption and economic destruction. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention. You are wrong to say that war exists because of oppressors. I made the point that not all war is negative because sometimes it challenges oppression. I did say that the wealth creation issue is too complex. It is you who said it was not - I am waiting for your evidence that war destroys more wealth than it creates. Anything else is just obfuscation to divert.