Bitcoin Forum

We are civilized humans not savages. Although we are civilized, we still fight wars like savages. War is essentially stealing. It's stealing because you are taking another's land, money, and resources while killing thousands of people in the process. It's immoral and unfair. The people who steal this way are not penalized for their wrongdoings instead they are treated as heroes.

If someone steals from someone else they get punished, if someone kills someone else they get punished. However if a group of individuals (country) plunders, murders and destroyes another group of individuals...they do not get punished. There is no authority to punish them.

The sad thing is, war has become somewhat like a game. We even have RULES for war  :D this is total madness. It's like making rules for stealing, it does not make sense.

War itself should be illegal it is a crime like any other crime. The fact that we wage war over each other reflects the evil in the collective human psycy. We are civilized but we continue to act like savages. What is the use of technological, and societal development when we cannot even be good to each other.

What do you guys think?
Is war justified?

War is money. Money buys power. "With great power comes great responsibility money".

It's all about money and power. Money equals power.

We're dominant species. We fight to gain power and spread our ideologies, no matter if people think they're good or bad.

Well then I guess stealing and murdering is right too.

If war is stealing, who is the thief and who is the victim?
Sometimes, it is not possible to identify the aggressor in a war.

That is true, war is stealing. The growing country who has the large scale supply of weapons are the real profit makers.

I think its not like that. Powerful people have money, but just rich people are not always powerful. We are dominant and cause of that we kill each other?
I agree with OP war is a crime. And we are not civilized people, we are not people at all. We are not even animals. Cause animals dont kill each other with that rage and evil. We are beasts.
Diogenes carried a lighted lamp in broad daylight looking in the streets of Athens for the honest man. When was that and are we better now?

yes definitely war is a crime... only innocent people and soldier manipuleted by government and rich people dies at a war.. it is a completely devastation for them not riches or governments..

War is crime. innocent people and soldiers die with economy of country getting reduced. I can't understand why you indicated rich people in it.

War, sometimes, is the tool to solve problem of population explosion, resource allocation, economic development, social contradictions and etc.

War is crime when everyone thinks of humanity and value of human life. War looks to be a business when a ruling power tries to conquer a particular community or locality.

It's true that war is not nice things but very cruel many times but if someone attack your country what you will do?
Just sit back and complain?
If you defend your homeland it's right thing to do.
If your country attack other country it's bad and not right.
It will be great that we live in ideal world without crime and wars but we are very fare from such age so we still can't avoid crime or wars.

We are all people and war has existed ever since. What annoys me the most are war rules... I mean, it's war not a game, you go to war to conquer, destroy and occupy, kill or be killed. If some country has superior power than  it should use it nad what war criminals.. plz...

every war is a crime against humanity. In the 21st century humans are still waging wars... I see no evolution in that!

Overpopulation can be solved by education. When people are educated, they won't have as many children. The fact that a half of the world does not receive good education is saddening. If all that money we spent on wars went towards developing the world as a whole, we would be far more united and our population situation will be far better than it is now. Also, war does not exactly expel populations rather it creates baby boom periods after millions have been killed and in a few decades the population increases more than it was pre-war. It is definitely not a good way to control population.

War pulls us to definite minus in nuclear era. Even winners would lose too much.

That is what happening in places such as the Middle East, Maghreb and the Sub-Saharan Africa. Uncontrolled population explosion leads to warfare and suffering. It is a never-ending cycle. Perfect examples are Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria.etc. The warfare encourages even more population growth, and the decline in the standard of education.

But like he said that is not the only case where war is used. Also useful to control society and distract people. People afraid of their neighbors are easier to control. War is also useful to steal money and resources from the population. From the country being attacked and the one attacking. Instead of investing the money in development it can go to the pockets of some businesses. Military contractors, weapons manufacturers, companies to rebuild after the war, etc. "War is a racket."


Better some rules to limit it than none. But it's true that they are mostly used by the stronger countries against the weak.

It is but more than that, it is more true that war is business...

War are so many crimes...

we are still savages still we are remaing in 21st century but we are savage because we are destroying the world

The crime that you can't stop by any law. it's so sad...

of course war is a crime, but the story tell us that a world whitout war is just utopic, it's sad but it is so 'that works

To some people, war is for business. Like gun and bomb manufacturers. Because its big time crime, government cant even handle them so they just join who they think who is beneficiary. Leaving civilian casualties. :(

Agreed. Each with different agendum like ISIS, NoKor and other revolts going on everywhere. Because its very expensive to persecute so many people so even governments go to war.

There are even ironies like promoting peace by proclaiming war Or by rallying.

Can't do anything to stop war. sometimes it should happen to teach us lessons. Take for some of the countries who have been great with wars. they've learned their lessons and look at them now, they're pretty much doing great with humanitarian activities, they now help improve poor countries.

War is one of the main driving forces behind human development/evolution and technical advancement. Competition and fighting is part of the human nature, so get used to that.

Animals are civilized, they do not make wars. War is a crime, I agree, but it is also one of the largest business in the history of mankind and that's all that matters to warlords.

I don't want to be a party popper but animals are killing without hesitation and regret, for food, sex, self defence or for position in a hierarchy. Ants, termites, and some primates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War)) actually used to wage wars.

i think some war is not crime. war to terrorism .! it s true!

War is peace.

War is a crime?

The only way you will be able to enforce this thinking with warmongers, is to make war on them.

:)

Defence ministry should be renamed to peace enforcement agency.

War is never a crime if the war you start for the peace and well beings of all the humanity. War happens due to the cruelty of the other party or enemy who tries to steal every thing from them because of power and ego.

Of course it is if you think about it war is a large scale murder and robbery. The word war is sugar coated it may still sound disturbing but that is best it can get to cover the actuall meaning of it.

Just wanna say that you're not totally right.
Money is different from power. In our current society, which is a rather peaceful one whatever one's could argue, money is deeply linked to power.

But when a society crashes, then we go back to the basics. The power, the real power, is the number of humans fighting, and the weapons they have. The people can, at anytime, in any of our civilized country, revolt and put down the head of the state to create a new order.

But well, where you're right is that "can" and "they will do it" are totally different, as long as we actually believe that money = power it will be the case :/

There are perhaps many causes worth dying for, but to me, certainly, there are none worth killing for.

i agree with you, war is a crime, in war all the civilians will suffered, they will be lack of food they are going to lose someone they love, in the end the country will force young boys to join the war

a lot of kids will become orphan and nature will be damaged

War crimes are established by the international treaties concerning the use of military force - namely the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent Additional Protocols. There are also conventions and treaties concerning the use of certain weapons (mostly encompassed in the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons). Additionally, the treaty creating the International Criminal Court provides a definition of a war crime.

Mostly these "laws" came into effect after World War II. The laws regarding the use of force (starting a war) are called jus ad bellum and the laws dictating what is acceptable during war are called jus in bello. These have been established by the world community through practice of nations, the United Nations, and the treaties mentioned above. The laws concerning warfare are generally known as international humanitarian law.

War is not justified so long as you are the aggressor.
Well at least war is slowly on the decline:
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ourworldindata_wars-after-1946-state-based-battle-death-rate-by-type.png

No, war isn't stealing. Stealing is secondary, it's a consequence. War is the destruction of your enemy. IS wants to kill all the infidels. Hitler wanted to destroy all Jews, Gypsies and all people he saw as enemies of the pure Aryan race...

War is barbarian practice and not accepted in inteligent world,We have uninteligent governments >:(

War destroys life an dmoney, I think its really a crime :(

If people take whats yours and you start a "war", is that stealing?  ???

Every time someone dies it's a crime. Not killing people. And most of all if someone doesn't want to participate in your war they shouldn't be thrown in jail. All people have the right to live.

Take it from a soldier:

CHAPTER ONE

War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out. ,,,,..much more

War Is A Racket

By Major General Smedley Butler

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

War is social cannibalism.

Most of our current understanding of war crimes was established during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Further rules concerning the treatment of POWs were set in the Geneva Conventions I, II, III, and IV.

I've seen a post somewhere on the web - don't remember exactly where thought, but what it said was something in the lines of: 2015 total global expenses of war - 1795 billion$, while the necessary $ to end world wide hunger was 170 I believe. Just a thought.

I can see your point and I agree with you partly. I think about it a lot too. I think that if we have no weapons at all the world would be a better place. But also I think what if in such a world a group of individuals with baseball bats (which are not weapons aren't they) will start terrorisng all people around saying they all should follow their instructions or otherwise they'll be beaten? Then what?

Actually I don't know the right answer.

i don't agree with you it is really easy to identify the aggressors... they are the ones who starts the bloody war for their greedy desires..

yeah right dude.
stupid only will go with war. intelligent people will do a smart war like invention, medical things around the world and more..
But still stupid international politicians are there.

You are from Turkey, right? If Russia attacked Turkey for shooting down its plane, who would be aggressor?
Russia could claim that Turkey made the first attack.

war crime is stupid word it is too idealistic i know you think i am bad or whatever i dont really care war is war war is bad thats how it is it has only been recently that people started being concerned with "war crimes" since with "war crimes" there is no way to win a war

Yes, but I think the main reasons that bring about a war or the beginnings of a misunderstood is religion.
Religious leaders ironically demand peace, but then there are those who go against the regime and install their own hardcore beliefs.

War means money to some people, to creators and also is a place for testing different arms, poisons and making experiments. Remember LSD and Vietnam..and illegal labs in south Asia. If somebody attacks you, your country, start killing people and taking your territory than you must defend your borders, your state...like this on middle East now

I don't think his is our government that is unintelligent but rather our society  :-\

Yes religions play big role. All religions are basically the peaceful religions but the few extremists that are scattered throughout the world make it unbearable for the rest.

Politics is another wretched reason for war, every leader wants to be the top and foremost in their government, basically all for greed and money and of course power. As long as religion and power rule the world, wars will be inevitable.

You cannot label a country as a terrorist country for causing wars just because some people there are crazy and fundamentally confused, look at the rest of the population they are living peaceful lives like me and you.

i agree with you .. war is a true definite of a bloddy hell crime

Dan Sanchez
7 hrs ago

Peace is the Keystone of Liberty
Why Libertarians Should be Thoroughly Anti-War

The anti-war movement desperately needs libertarian leadership. And the libertarian movement urgently needs to be strongly anti-war. So in this essay I will offer some chief reasons for every libertarian to be 100% non-interventionist and actively engaged in the cause of peace.

Libertarianism embraces the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property. The meaning of these rights have been intentionally distorted by some, but they originally meant the right not to be murdered (life), not to be enslaved (liberty), and not to be robbed (property). What distinguishes libertarians is that we apply these principles comprehensively, making no exception for the government. It is not okay for the government to steal and call it taxation, to enslave and call it incarceration, or to murder and call it war.
As private murder is a worse crime than private kidnapping and theft, so should war (mass murder by the government) be a paramount concern for libertarians, surpassing even many issues involving the police state and economic planning/redistribution.

Moreover, the government crime of war is what enables the government’s other crimes. War, as economist Robert Higgs has put it, is the master key of the State. The terror, hate, and urgency stimulated by war causes the populace to become as conformist and docile as a herd. Rulers know this very well, which is why they so frequently manipulate and drag their people into wars. Both the domestic police state (the garrison state) and domestic economic planning (war mobilization) grow rapidly during wars and cold wars. War, as Randolph Bourne wrote, is the health of the State. By this he meant that foreign wars nourish domestic tyranny.
For example, see the cartelization of the U.S. economy emerging out of the World Wars, the national security state emerging out of World War II and the Cold War, and the expansion of the police state (mass surveillance, the militarization of the police, etc) throughout the War on Terror.

War is also self-reinforcing, and does not lead to long-term peace and security as some of its defenders claim. This is because war is an inherently collectivist undertaking, wholly incompatible with libertarianism’s individualistic notions of justice. War targets, not individuals for the enforcement of restitution, but whole populations for pure destruction. War destroys the lives and livelihoods of countless undeserving victims, including innocent children, who are dismissively chalked up as “acceptable losses” and “collateral damage.” These victims, whatever their culture, are real human beings with hopes, fears, and inner lives, the same as me, you, your niece, or any of your loved ones.

And when they are assaulted, they or their loved ones will desire redress, just as you or I would. If they are beset with the same collectivist notions of justice that their victimizers had, then they may seek or support collectivist retaliation against the “enemy population,” whether through conventional warfare or terrorism (asymmetric warfare). This will incur civilian casualties on the other side, which will elicit still more collectivist retaliation, incurring still more civilian casualties, and so on. Thus war tends to self-perpetuate in a cycle of unjust violence (aggression). Any ethic that justifies “collateral damage,” if applied universally, is an ethic of mutual extermination.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, confines retaliation to coercing restitution from individual perpetrators. Such violence is inherently self-containing, because it deters against aggression while not gratuitously generating grievances through indiscriminate destruction. The libertarian repudiation of war (collectivist violence), therefore tends toward security for all, whereas war tends toward insecurity for all.
For example, the 9/11 attacks, as Ron Paul famously stressed, was blowback from decades of intervention in the Middle East. Those attacks on civilians provoked massive Western wars on the Middle East. Those civilian-slaughtering wars in turn have engendered a massive increase in terrorism. And that terrorism is being used to justify still further war.

War is often waged for the stated purpose of “liberating” a country from tyranny. Waging war for freedom is just as counterproductive as waging war for security.
Often the hostility begins with a “cold war,” limited to sanctions and subversion. This is intended to impel reform by “punishing” the regime, or to induce revolution by causing misery for the people. This usually backfires, because it is easier for the tyrant to scapegoat the “foreign enemy” for suffering of the people than for the enemy to scapegoat the tyrant. This provides cover for the tyrant’s misrule. The foreign enemy also provides the tyrant with a useful bogeyman for terrorizing the people into rallying around the regime. Again, war nourishes domestic tyranny, and cold wars are no exception. Thus, cold wars intended to weaken or depose tyrannical regimes actually tend to strengthen them.

For example, since the 50s, the US has never relented in its hostility toward the communist regimes in Cuba and North Korea. Yet a half-century later, the Castros and the Kims have a firmer grip on power than ever. In contrast, in the 70s, the US accepted detente with the communist regimes in China and Vietnam. Since then, those countries have seen tremendous liberalization.
If the hostility escalates to a hot war, it makes things even worse. If the targeted regime survives the war, it will emerge from it with an even stronger grip on power. And if the regime is toppled, that is no guarantee of “freedom” for the people either. The conquerors may install a stable puppet regime. But puppet regimes tend to be even more repressive than demagogic tyrants, because they rely on foreign, not domestic support, and so need not fret over alienating their people with brutality.
Another possibility is that the overthrow creates a failed state in which several factions tear the country apart in a chronic civil war. This is another distinct likelihood, because foreigners do not have the local knowledge or the right incentives to establish a stable compromise among the country’s interest groups. Libertarians, who are rightly skeptical of the government’s ability to plan its own society’s economy, should be doubly skeptical of that same government’s ability to plan another society’s institutions.

See for example, the post-9/11 western regime-change interventions throughout the Middle East, which have created six terrorist-infested, civil-war-stricken failed states in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.
In any conflict between a more free country and a less free country, some libertarians are apt to assume that the more free country must be “in the right.” They assume that the worst tyrants are also the worst foreign aggressors. However, the opposite tends to be true. Tyranny breeds poverty, and an impoverished populace cannot provide much in the way of tax revenue. So tyrannical regimes tend to be too poor to afford a successfully belligerent foreign policy.

On the other hand, freedom breeds wealth, and a rich tax base can support a tremendous military budget. So it is actually less domestically tyrannical governments that tend to be more imperialistic.
See for example, the globe-spanning empire of Great Britain, the original “Land of the Free,” and the current global hegemony of the British Empire’s successor, the United States of America.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to becoming thoroughly anti-war is that it involves casting America’s warlike history and the very nature of our government in an entirely new light. It is difficult, even for libertarians, to accept that the government you have known all your life is not the benign institution you thought it was, but one of the greatest engines of mass murder, destruction, and suffering that has ever existed.

However, keep in mind that the very same institution that has waged these wars has also been in control of your education since your early childhood and throughout most of the waking hours of your formative years. Thus your government has decicively shaped your perception of its actions and role in the world. It is only natural that you would be taken aback at a perspective that runs entirely counter to a message that you’ve imbibed throughout all that. But just because something is hard to accept, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
So don’t avert your eyes, and don’t be silent in the face of evil. Start learning the truth about the empire and its atrocities, and start speaking out against war.

https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/peace-is-the-keystone-of-liberty-8e967549694a#.m2ydk4t52

War might be crime, but if you are in the foxholes, war is more like grime.    ;D

war is the definite description of crime.. all the wars bring bloody hell sadness to our world..

This is interesting. From Admiral Obvious, a leading naval expert,  comes this important information...................

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/china-may-be-using-sea-to-hide-submarines.jpg.

Will Durant on Mencius (372-289 BC): He denounced war as a crime, and shocked the hero-worshipers of his time by writing: "There are men who say: 'I am skillful at marshaling troops, I am skillful at conducting a battle.' They are great criminals." "There has never been a good war," he said.

war is a game,is played with a smile,if you can't smile,grin. if you can't grin,keep out of the way till you can.
- winston churchill

War is sometimes necessary for restoring rights of those who are enslaved!
Don't forget history, freedom was restored only through blood and tears.
Most of time US war machine making war for profit this is something else..

War is slavery. In a war you don't have rights, only orders.

What you say is wrong.
You're not making the difference between fighting oppression or slavery of the people, which is called a revolution and not a war, and the fight between two countries.

War is stupid, and stupid people vote for those stupid warmongers all the time.
Why are you so stupid  :D I should say "we"

Btw I havent voted since the United Kingdom referendum of 1975, that was me being stupid and naive.  :(

War is just a political issue that is the same during the ancient times. Like conquering lands only on different perspectives.

War is a crime, but war is required at times. If a country is often getting control over other country everytime one can't be patient. There should be a do or die to make themselves come out of the control.

It's basically a byproduct of war - crime. And that's just the way it is. We have had wars since the beginning of times and that is just the way things are.

Not at all times war sometimes is a crisis you really need it if you have a huge problem in your country for example there is a drug menace in your society and many crimes happened. Therefore you need to do something before its to late as a leader. You need to use military and police to protect the integrity of your country. That is not a crime i guess.

i agree. war is definitely unnecessary and nothing, no reason at all can justify the horror and pain war brings to innocent people. the sad thing is there are powerful people that thrive on war regardless of the effect this has on others. because if you think about it, simply understanding other people and having respectful conversation between two parties could avoid this.

If you are talking about the phillipines I would say what is being done there is definitely a crime. Almost 2000 people have died. Some at the hand of the government. Most at the hands of vigilantes. No or little oversight on who is getting killed. And alternatives that aren't pursued like not following the war on drugs pushed by other countries. Decriminalization and maybe legalization down the road could be better alternatives as the incentive for criminals would reduce.