I'm not an intellectual or playing a big role in international relations between countries,
Just as a simple man. I've got a compliment, that is
There is no one great creature as human in this world. We don't need to know if there is any power stronger than us.
First of all, what living things do>
they try their best in life to live their life peacefully and pass out when it is time to, isn't it? Same as humans.
Every single person has their family their personal life everyone has the right to live in a better way, same as you have, why we are making anything complicated?
Nothing exists in this world permanently every single thing has its end.
NO MORE WARS. LIFE IS FOR LIFE.
KIND TO OTHERS STAY CALM AND COOL.
FOCUS ON MENTAL HEALTH AND SPIRITUALITY IS ALSO, IMPORTANT.
Topic: Wars are pointless here is why there is better ways to do it (Read 126 times)
You and I recognize that wars are pointless. Or do you want to fight about it?!
But what is better option is to attack infrastruce of other countries like power grid data centers cyber attacks and all the other things roadways railways so to destroy the country economy once the economy is weak enough and resources used to fix all then you can make real old school war.
If such kind of war will be possible then it would have been okay than the kind of war countries are having now because imagine a war with no casualties no human lost no injuries but only infrastructure and some other important things for the economy growth will only be destroyed instead but however is unfortunate such war may not only happen because I have heard of a lot of crisis and non of them has happen without painful sad news and besides if the idea of destroying infrastructure and other things is good how would they no that people will not there working when it will happen?, or would they send a letter to the country in terms of letting them no their targets so that people will not be there?, tell us how it will happen without affecting anybody. There are two kinds of people in this world. There are average people like us, and there are the ambitious, psychopaths.
The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
I agree, average people like us don't really want to get into power. What we want is peace and have some things that we're able to live happily and just make it a day.The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
It bring results to the ones that startled it, the world leaders. But we as commoners, we don't really get anything from there but only trouble and PTSD to the ones involved in it. 
But how do you keep 'them' from drafting you for their wars? Head off to prison? Better to start your war against them.
There are two kinds of people in this world. There are average people like us, and there are the ambitious, psychopaths.
The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
I agree, average people like us don't really want to get into power. What we want is peace and have some things that we're able to live happily and just make it a day.The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
It bring results to the ones that startled it, the world leaders. But we as commoners, we don't really get anything from there but only trouble and PTSD to the ones involved in it. Times Changing and world Changing what works before not work anymore.
To make direct war against another country it don't bring much results of power but you could lose to or have a lot losses since countries have all well developed alliances and war equipment supply chains are strong now days.
So china usa russia NATO israel and iran or yemen,they all are quite equal so If they make wars it's more likely equally destructive and no winners.
But what is better option is to attack infrastruce of other countries like power grid data centers cyber attacks and all the other things roadways railways so to destroy the country economy once the economy is weak enough and resources used to fix all then you can make real old school war.
Nowdays the winners or losers will be those who have best infrastructures and protected system powergrids internet and cyber security and financial system because now it's a new type of war the everyday life structures getting attacked, that's why the old system can't survive and a lot financial system banks and all the others and goverments who want to survive and keep systems running and way safer need to use blockchain.
You can't attack blockchain and btc when you do so you have to attack a lot of computers all over the world wich is impossible.
But the ukraine and middle east show's exacly that all the countries got a lot military skills knowledge and weapons so to think that you can just win someone and you are stronger or better not realistic anymore since all the world and all the alliances and countries are heavily militarised.
And who could judge whos guns are bigger and better ? Nobody so direct war without good stradegy to weaken enemy with tricks and sabotages don't bring much results but you can only risk yourself that you would be the one who lose,- only thing how you can still do is the surprise attack If you make huge and over large parts or like torjan horse was.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
War is one thing that if it could be possibly avoided it should be avoided by every means possible but even as that be the case war sometimes can be a way to peace, until there is war peace can not be guaranteed in most cases To make direct war against another country it don't bring much results of power but you could lose to or have a lot losses since countries have all well developed alliances and war equipment supply chains are strong now days.
So china usa russia NATO israel and iran or yemen,they all are quite equal so If they make wars it's more likely equally destructive and no winners.
But what is better option is to attack infrastruce of other countries like power grid data centers cyber attacks and all the other things roadways railways so to destroy the country economy once the economy is weak enough and resources used to fix all then you can make real old school war.
Nowdays the winners or losers will be those who have best infrastructures and protected system powergrids internet and cyber security and financial system because now it's a new type of war the everyday life structures getting attacked, that's why the old system can't survive and a lot financial system banks and all the others and goverments who want to survive and keep systems running and way safer need to use blockchain.
You can't attack blockchain and btc when you do so you have to attack a lot of computers all over the world wich is impossible.
But the ukraine and middle east show's exacly that all the countries got a lot military skills knowledge and weapons so to think that you can just win someone and you are stronger or better not realistic anymore since all the world and all the alliances and countries are heavily militarised.
And who could judge whos guns are bigger and better ? Nobody so direct war without good stradegy to weaken enemy with tricks and sabotages don't bring much results but you can only risk yourself that you would be the one who lose,- only thing how you can still do is the surprise attack If you make huge and over large parts or like torjan horse was.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
Certainly a good number of wars fought in the past and even currently have usually been utterly pointless
most citizens dont actually care about other people of the world moving around. infact most people want to be able to freely visit different places and own property anywhere they want
(its politics and media that create fear of others)
its usually nations leaders that decide a war is needed and to create a divide.. so simple solution.. 2 nations leaders who oppose each other, should fight to the death themselves.. not send their citizens out to do the fighting
atleast then we might have some fresher leaders of a healthier, stronger, younger, willing to put their life on the line for their citizens
then we will see politicians make smarter decisions to do the right thing to avoid themselves ending up in some deathmatch
politicians need to be accountable for their actions. so send them to a frontline first
(its politics and media that create fear of others)
its usually nations leaders that decide a war is needed and to create a divide.. so simple solution.. 2 nations leaders who oppose each other, should fight to the death themselves.. not send their citizens out to do the fighting
atleast then we might have some fresher leaders of a healthier, stronger, younger, willing to put their life on the line for their citizens
then we will see politicians make smarter decisions to do the right thing to avoid themselves ending up in some deathmatch
politicians need to be accountable for their actions. so send them to a frontline first
A better way is, record the names of all politicians who promote wars when they are in office. Then, when they get out of office, have a group that quietly assassinates them.
The most noticeable difference we would get if governments decide to only engage in indirect wars is a significant reduction of death of human lives, but economies will still collapse and both parties will feel the impact of the war no matter what approach would be used to fight. The bad thing about it is, it is not only the countries at war that will feel the impact of these war, other countries who rely on either of these countries for exports or imports and many other economic benefits will feel the impact too. The global market will suffer it. But do we have to go to war to prove our points even when we know that war is costly, way costlier than anyone can imagine?
There are no better ways to go to war because all the ways will still make people suffer. It's time we start respecting boundaries and individual differences so we can enjoy peace and a stable economy for a longer period of time. This is what we should be aiming for.
There are no better ways to go to war because all the ways will still make people suffer. It's time we start respecting boundaries and individual differences so we can enjoy peace and a stable economy for a longer period of time. This is what we should be aiming for.
There are two kinds of people in this world. There are average people like us, and there are the ambitious, psychopaths.
The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
The people in power are the psychopaths. People like us are not ambitious enough to get into power... in most cases.
Times Changing and world Changing what works before not work anymore.
To make direct war against another country it don't bring much results of power but you could lose to or have a lot losses since countries have all well developed alliances and war equipment supply chains are strong now days.
So china usa russia NATO israel and iran or yemen,they all are quite equal so If they make wars it's more likely equally destructive and no winners.
But what is better option is to attack infrastruce of other countries like power grid data centers cyber attacks and all the other things roadways railways so to destroy the country economy once the economy is weak enough and resources used to fix all then you can make real old school war.
Nowdays the winners or losers will be those who have best infrastructures and protected system powergrids internet and cyber security and financial system because now it's a new type of war the everyday life structures getting attacked, that's why the old system can't survive and a lot financial system banks and all the others and goverments who want to survive and keep systems running and way safer need to use blockchain.
You can't attack blockchain and btc when you do so you have to attack a lot of computers all over the world wich is impossible.
But the ukraine and middle east show's exacly that all the countries got a lot military skills knowledge and weapons so to think that you can just win someone and you are stronger or better not realistic anymore since all the world and all the alliances and countries are heavily militarised.
And who could judge whos guns are bigger and better ? Nobody so direct war without good stradegy to weaken enemy with tricks and sabotages don't bring much results but you can only risk yourself that you would be the one who lose,- only thing how you can still do is the surprise attack If you make huge and over large parts or like torjan horse was.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
To make direct war against another country it don't bring much results of power but you could lose to or have a lot losses since countries have all well developed alliances and war equipment supply chains are strong now days.
So china usa russia NATO israel and iran or yemen,they all are quite equal so If they make wars it's more likely equally destructive and no winners.
But what is better option is to attack infrastruce of other countries like power grid data centers cyber attacks and all the other things roadways railways so to destroy the country economy once the economy is weak enough and resources used to fix all then you can make real old school war.
Nowdays the winners or losers will be those who have best infrastructures and protected system powergrids internet and cyber security and financial system because now it's a new type of war the everyday life structures getting attacked, that's why the old system can't survive and a lot financial system banks and all the others and goverments who want to survive and keep systems running and way safer need to use blockchain.
You can't attack blockchain and btc when you do so you have to attack a lot of computers all over the world wich is impossible.
But the ukraine and middle east show's exacly that all the countries got a lot military skills knowledge and weapons so to think that you can just win someone and you are stronger or better not realistic anymore since all the world and all the alliances and countries are heavily militarised.
And who could judge whos guns are bigger and better ? Nobody so direct war without good stradegy to weaken enemy with tricks and sabotages don't bring much results but you can only risk yourself that you would be the one who lose,- only thing how you can still do is the surprise attack If you make huge and over large parts or like torjan horse was.
Direct war really don't bring results but it will just destroy the both sides.
Jump to: