Jessica Giannone, Staff Writer:
Think back to a time when you were a child. Let’s say you were about six. You’re sitting in a room with another kid your age, and there are only a few toys. One of the toys in the room, however, is particularly desired by both of you. You fight over it; maybe throw a couple of toys at each other, hit each other, and one person winds up with the toy; bruises and all. Your mothers would tell you it was wrong to fight, and that sharing is the right way to handle the “disagreement.” You would eventually get over it and move on to another toy. But for the rest of your childhood, you’re encouraged not to fight, and to talk things over without violence.
I find it funny that the one most important fact of life, which is preached to kids as they grow up, is the one thing that practically all of the countries in the world can’t abide by.
When you really think about it, and I mean from a much broader philosophical scope, it’s hard to see the rational difference between fighting over toys, and fighting over land or oil. Yes, resources
are limited, and it is necessary to have a defense system in case your country winds up under attack, but when you stop and take a look at it, it sounds kind of crazy, doesn’t it?
The idea of war is so common in society that it’s hard to argue with it; it’s almost like a necessity. It’s been there all along. But it’s as stupid and pathetic as two teenagers having a fist fight over a girl. It’s the same exact concept. You’re competing over something by using violence, expecting it to solve all your problems. Not to mention, it is considered morally (and legally) wrong to harm or kill someone, yet that very practice is where all of our money goes.
I mean, I can’t say I think it makes sense to abolish war, because
we all know that would be close to impossible, but it’s like every country is a big contradiction of what it aims to stand for: peace.
Millions of criminals are sentenced to prison for violence, while at the same time, millions of others are busy shooting off people with snipers, and they don’t even know who they’re killing.
The worst part is, if we really must rebel, heck, just kill the dictator. The military isn’t what sets the laws and conquers land. We’re really only at war with the leaders of the country, not the country itself. Of course, there are citizens that believe in what their leader stands for, but not everyone agrees. Why should we have to hate people because of the place they live, when they’re not even involved, and most likely don’t even know what’s going on? We don’t even get along with people in our own school, let alone our own country. Even the leaders of the same country take opposing sides (political parties).
If everyone can just realize that there’s never going to be a time when everyone agrees with each other, it would make no difference whether we fight or not. The only difference is that people wind up dead. Tell me why negotiation is so bad again? What negatives could come from settling an agreement? If there is no way to please both sides, and one must win, do they really win in the reality of it if they have to sacrifice and lose tons of people in war to obtain a material object? Okay, we need oil. We need resources so people can live; to preserve our citizens. But does anyone realize we’re killing citizens to save them? It’s one big hypocritical whirlpool.
Unless you’re Hitler, and have serious mental problems (which if that’s the case, you shouldn’t be running a country anyway), why is it so bad to compromise?
I guess I have a kind of naive, “untainted” view about the world. I come off like some “la di da” little girl who wouldn’t know the first thing about handling a country. It is so much more complicated
than what I’m making it seem. But so what? The concept is the concept: solving problems using violence, verses peace. Seriously, “Oh I want that land. Let’s kill each other, and the team who has the most men standing wins! Yay!” How does that actually sound, because that’s really what it comes down to.
I understand why the world will always handle things aggressively, it’s how we survive. We have to succeed over the people who challenge us. Defeat is not an option for anyone; we must demolish any threat, and remain protected. I get it. It’s just unfathomable to accept. Are we that intellectually challenged, out of all the accomplishments we’ve achieved over the centuries, that we can’t come up with a strategy to solve this one dominating problem? Children, for Christ’s sake, set a better example of problem solving. I guess we just weren’t meant to go beyond sharing a LEGO block.
What about war
Jessica Giannone, Staff Writer: