Difference between revisions of "War"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(removed stub)
(HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?!)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''War''' is a prolonged state of violent conflict between two states.  War has been conducted for many purposes, such as the acquisition of goods, seizing enemy territory, to satisfy the honor of the [[sovereign]], eliminating a threat to the homeland, stamping out rival religious sects (see [[Religious_war]]), or exporting political ideologies.  Warfare between factions within a single [[state]] is called [[civil war]].   
+
==What is it Good For?==
 +
The question of what war is good for has plagued historians for millions of years.  Early historiography on the topic seems to indicate that war was indeed good for something, but this is still ill-defined.   
  
−
Wars have often been periods of great technological innovation as each side finds itself faced with the necessity of creating new methods of offense and defense to ensure national survival.  The [[American Civil War]], coming only a decade after the [[Industrial revolution]] took root in the United States, introduced mechanized warfare to the world with metal [[warship]]s, [[railway|railroad]] transportation of forces and material, and instant communication via the [[telegraph]]. The conflict known as the Great War (later called [[World War I]]) introduced air combat, [[chemical warfare]], [[submarine]] and [[tank (military)|tank]] warfare, and the large scale deployment of the [[machine gun]].  [[World War II]] refined tank tactics in the form of the [[Blitzkrieg]] as the [[aircraft carrier]] took mastery of the seas.  It ended with the first use of [[nuclear weapon]]s in wartime.
+
In 1970 the noted historian [[Edwin Starr]] radically challenged this notion.  In his paper entitled ''Starr Wars!'' Starr came to the conclusion that war was good for "absolutely nothing....  Say it again now!".  Starr's view now seems to be dominant amongst historians, and political leaders, especially [[George W. Bush]], have paid attention to Starr and have completely eradicated war from the world.
  
−
The decades after World War II saw America emerge as a military colossus, unchallenged and irresistable on the battlefield head-on, but vulnerable to a new type of [[asymmetrical warfare]] against an enemy who shuns uniforms, hides among the populace, and employs cheap but effective improvised weapons against multi-million dollar U.S. hardware.
+
Scientists have now discovered 4 new uses  for war. Which are as follows: -
 +
 
 +
1) Vacuuming
 +
 
 +
2) Cheap Labour
 +
 
 +
3) The cure to [[Dinosaurs]]
 +
 
 +
4) Absolutly nothing!
 +
 
 +
and... BONUS NUMBER 5!!!!!!
 +
 
 +
Trouser Filling adventure.
  
 
[[category:sociology]]
 
[[category:sociology]]

Revision as of 23:53, July 4, 2007

What is it Good For?

The question of what war is good for has plagued historians for millions of years. Early historiography on the topic seems to indicate that war was indeed good for something, but this is still ill-defined.

In 1970 the noted historian Edwin Starr radically challenged this notion. In his paper entitled Starr Wars! Starr came to the conclusion that war was good for "absolutely nothing.... Say it again now!". Starr's view now seems to be dominant amongst historians, and political leaders, especially George W. Bush, have paid attention to Starr and have completely eradicated war from the world.

Scientists have now discovered 4 new uses for war. Which are as follows: -

1) Vacuuming

2) Cheap Labour

3) The cure to Dinosaurs

4) Absolutly nothing!

and... BONUS NUMBER 5!!!!!!

Trouser Filling adventure.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=War&oldid=218105"