English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-17 06:13:01 · 15 answers · asked by emo 1 in Politics & Government Military

15 answers

because they don't know how to control their emotions.
chin

2006-12-17 06:14:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Resourses, usually. Take Rwanda, which was very densely populated and was overfarmed... the whole countyr looked like a banan plantion. Rather than preserve the resourse they had, or have the government try to change the prevailing attitude, "the more kids the better," resources got tight, and people would start fighting over anything.

I'm not trying to say the massacre was right, just that if a country has more pop that its resources can provide for, you'd better be ready for tensions and killing.

2006-12-17 17:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by serious troll 6 · 0 0

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that
it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest.
Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the
morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own
morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be
thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of
means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring
an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest
just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps
an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a
cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a
harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are
now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad
disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition,
however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it
is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have
said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a
hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army
as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for
conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when people,
distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of
a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the
heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free
will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military
establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself
unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling
-- that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace
of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all
countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither
oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear,
does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice
rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -- this must someday
become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.

Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time
for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they
work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military
burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest
will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of
war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of
lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud --
and from up high.

(translation by W. Kaufmann, transcribed by T. Rourke. File archived
at Lord Etrigan's Nietzsche site...
http://members.aol.com/lrdetrigan/index4.html Accept no imitations!)

2006-12-17 15:20:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

"Why do people": SpellCheck is not your enemy. And the reason people fight is because it is necessary. Iraq was not a necessary war, neither was Vietnam, but many wars were. The Civil War, the Revolution, both World Wars, all were necessary and/or unavoidable.

2006-12-18 11:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0 0

Usually because their politicians (sometimes disguised as religious leaders) inflame them against another country, group, religious sect & c. They do this to maintain control.

The other case is when a country is attacked. A country has a right to defend itself just as an individual has the right to self defense. This is the "Just War" principle.

2006-12-17 14:53:34 · answer #5 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0 0

How about "Why DO people fight each other?" Respect the language. Tool.

2006-12-17 14:14:22 · answer #6 · answered by Cecil 4 · 3 0

Instinctive.........as old as man.
I used to think that world peace was possible in my lifetime, but realize now that we are in our infancy as a species and it will take generations to possibly mutate into a species that wants peace. I do not see it in our lifetimes or for many generations to come.
There are enough of us with that vision that I believe that one day it could happen if we do not destroy ourselves or the world itself before that time.


Answer from "English Scholar".
It is best that she be told.

2006-12-17 14:21:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think it's part of our hard wiring. People have been fighting as long as there have been people.

2006-12-17 14:16:08 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0 1

Because people use improper grammer like "why does people"

2006-12-17 14:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by CarolinaGirl 4 · 2 0

do any of you "english scholars" who answered this question with a smartass answer concerning proper grammar ever took the time to figure that it could be a child asking this question?

2006-12-17 14:29:00 · answer #10 · answered by Beaujock 1 · 0 2

To kill those who they do not like especially if they have oil

2006-12-17 14:16:16 · answer #11 · answered by Prima Donna 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers