Capturing a slave cannot be considered war in any sense. War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors. It

Capturing a slave cannot be considered war in any sense. 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. Why is war greed and chauvinistic? It did not feel chauvnistic when I was delivering medical aid to children who would have died without military forces being present to administer it. Aspects of war may be greedy and characterised by chauvinistic values but not the entirety of war which you seem incapable of discussing rationally. This thread has reached it's conclusion the minute you refused to engage with legitimate questions. Your response reads like a genuine tantrum by a child. I certainly do not think that the evolution of democratic societies could have occurred without acts of war to take freedom from those that would deny it. I have answered your question. Now answer mine or at least answer the original aim of the thread with compelling evidence. Does war destroy more wealth than it creates?