2006-08-02 00:04:53 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
nope. it depends on the purpose of the war : if the war is to get more territory, then it's usefull or not depending on the outcome of the war (if the attacking country won territory or not).
wars are usually fought for a reason. If the objective is achieved, then the war isn't fought in vain... if not, then... well, then you've lost your time and a lot of ressources (money and men).
From another point of view, you could also say that wars are always fought in vain from the point of view of at least 1 of the countries at war (those who lose something) : because they should have given in imediately to prevent the casualties since they lost anyway.
2006-08-02 00:11:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All wars are fought for material gain whether it be for land, Oil, water, gold. however modern societies no-longer accept this as a justification for war so the governments of the world use ideologies as a justification for warfare such as Freedom, Democracy, War on Terror, etc this is meerly a smoke screen. The sadest thing is that this planet can sustain all human population if it were evenly distributed.
2006-08-03 22:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by martyn d 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is absolutely no good reason for war. All that is happening in the physical world though is symbolic of the state of all consciousness as one. If there is war, then that is telling us something about the condition of our thought process(all of humanity as one). So on a much deeper level of understanding, war is happening for a reason. On a physical level, it is in vain.
2006-08-02 00:29:05 · answer #3 · answered by Roxw 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is vested interest. 'to HIS fellow man????" We are too divided. So, I guess wars are not fought in vain.
History is written by the side who wins. So the question of who is right who is wrong is buried forever.
2006-08-02 00:10:59 · answer #4 · answered by rafayb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all wars are fought in vein as the winner does not really win killing other people doesnt prove anything just that you got the biggest bombthatcher knew what she done to create the falklands war she removed all our troops and let the argintinians in just to win an election thats bad bush reagan thatcher and blair warmongers all of them as for saddam and bin laden they are the same just for themselves and sod off everyone else war is in vain
2006-08-03 13:00:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All wars are a waste of time and energy. Whoever speak on behalf of it has not experienced the soldiers' knock on the door and the roar of the tanks.
2006-08-02 00:30:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Completely useless and a waste of time and space on earth. But humans seem to have a need to have conflict because they always believe they have right on their side. Right can't be on everyone's side, nor is it on anyone's side who rallies conflict. It's always a stalemate and ultimately nobody is a winner.
2006-08-04 06:28:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
2006-08-02 06:16:06 · answer #8 · answered by drakke1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very sadly, no. Imagine living under the Nazis had they won in 1945.
2006-08-02 01:56:37 · answer #9 · answered by grpr1964 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think most wars are fought in vein. although, i wouldn't exactly like to be ruled be some physcotic freak.
2006-08-02 00:14:32 · answer #10 · answered by claire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋