This is a very long run, igniting very endless civil wars.

Not necessarily. It doesn't mean that civil wars will start. It could be an outcome, but it isn't usually.

I was referring to this quote in particular:

But civil wars DID start... Pre-war Afghanistan there was a pretty much dormant civil war already sitting there. Now it's erupted into full scale slaughter... saving innocent lives for centuries to come.

Lets not go into Iraq...

Okay. I expressed my opinion. But I do think it can be a change for good. And what I've stated is just my opinion, and I know that other people agree with me also.


Also, shouldn't we stop debating about the war (and maybe take it up elsewhere) seeing as this one is about 9/11 and if we think with theories, not about the war's current stats.

@CiaoPinkZebra- The majority of the time there are more diplomatic ways to dealing with these issues. War causes great loss of life and great feelings of animosity towards us which can and has fuelled the hate towards the west. Afghanistan is a poor country and its people are poor and vunerable to both the western armies and the Taliban. This war was not nessary which makes the loss of life a tragedy.

@una I see your point. I still think that we are getting some where, but from what everyone's saying, it seems like at a higher cost and with room for improvement.

Really the best methods are to empower the people through education, better jobs, better pay ect. People are poor so they work on the poppy farms which fund the Taliban. If you develop an industry which offers them a better job alternative then no one would be working the poppy farms which helps fund the Taliban, the industry would generate an economy and the country can develop and improve.:)

I'm not exactly sure how much of that is true...

I actually think America has a huge influence with the poppy farms- they leak into America for a reason. If we were that strict on them- they wouldn't be here.

Yes, but the sad fact is that it would be that most people in power will want war because it lines their pockets, even if it will hurt the community. They want the quickest, fastest way to the results that they want. It is how it is, and how it always has been. :(

Not really, war is extremely expensive for the warring entities. There are people that benefit from war, but it's not usually the countries in general, maybe it's people that reside inside the country, but was is mostly relied on to dispose of an enemy through force. In most occasions both sides lose, no matter who wins, both sides always lose first.

Uhm... I like where you're coming from but I have some places where I disagree. I'm just like that xD

I agree that there is no benefit of war, but I wouldn't go so far to say that a country disposes of its army by creating a civil war. Civil wars usually start because of split views or races. It's hard to end a war if half of your country doesn't want something to happen. Although they are sometimes mean and corrupted, government officials are afraid of overturning their seat of power or a nation-wide protest. They wont do something drastic if they know they might get hurt. And I don't know how I would say winning and losing in a war. I agree, by using violence no one wins. But it's kinda hard to pin down winning and losing.

Actually, I'm not saying that violence always leads to no one winning. It's nice to say things like that and I wish it were true, but it's not. Saying violence never solves anything is like saying you always lose when you gamble or no one wins the lottery. They're only half true, people gamble because you do win sometimes and some people win more often than others (out of sheer chance, not luck), the chance of winning is the temptation to gamble. It's the same with violence. but violence is less of a gamble in most cases.

The main problem with war is that when you choose to do it, you're literally making a decision to kill off and displace a lot of innocent lives for whatever gains you may see fit for doing so.

Some people believe that 1 life is worth taking to save 100, but in real life things aren't as simple as statistics. With hundreds of thousands now dead (many more displaced) because of these wars, I doubt any lives were saved at all.

Its true... its like we have to fight. You could say it was human nature, but I don't think our original intent was to kill. Its so sad to see what happened to the world. :(

But sometimes, it is true that if you kill one person you save many more. It's so screwed up and hard in this world though, what is it we're trying to save? I don't know ._.

The problem with that is it's not provable. You'll never be able to know if when you kill this person, people will be saved. It might be true, it might not be, you'll never know. It's always a gamble...

This is in reference to one life, war is pretty much the decision to take many lives. Whether that saves some is another question. I don't know if it ever has.

I agree. Us as humans will never stop fighting as long as there's something we want, disagree about, blah blah blah... Even though we want world peace, how will we ever get it if all of the stuff that goes on in the world continues?

Peace is entirely subjective to the individual that seeks it. There is no applicable universal definition.