War, And How It Relates To Us Today
Created | Updated Feb 14, 2002
The term disagreement can be defined in many ways, however its basic principes come back to that of a conflict between two opposing parties sharing different views upon a common subject. On many occasions this conflict may result in either or both disagreeing parties attempting to press their opinions of the matter in question upon one another as correct, or trying to inflict harm upon the opposing body for its lack of agreement.
In individual cases, minor disagreements may be settled quite readily. Sometimes, however, situations may escalate beyond the control of either party and result in either physical or emotional harm to both sides. A common way to resolve problems arising between two individuals is for each to respect one another's views and rights to them, or indeed one may impress upon the other his idea as being more acceptable or correct, and therefore end the basis for argument. Yet again, a combination of the two views may be reached and thus form a compromise.
Unfortunately some individuals' grievances have caused major physical/emotional harm, and sometimes even death, due to the volatility of the content being disagreed upon. Generally however, as already mentioned, respect of another's views and his/her right to them is an acceptable basis to curtail an argument from becoming out of reasonable control.
On a more collective level, disagreements are far harder to resolve and disperse of. If a group of ten opposes another ten's views, all the previous examples of the curtailment/escalation of an individual argument apply to every single entity involved in the dispute--all 20. Thus, there is a far greater chance that a lower amount of respect for a disagreeing party may be applied by at least one of either group of ten. This, quite naturally, creates confusion and a complexity which is not easily dealt with.
For this reason, when great numbers of people oppose each other on a common issue, it is to be expected that hostilities may be provoked by both resisting sides. It is also correct to say that there may be more than two disagreeing parties--there may be three or more. In fact, there is no limit to differences of opinion, which is the source of all disputes.
Thus, when a major dispersement of common opinion occurs, many people may take to physical violence in order to state their beliefs in an either a provocative manner or with the intention of making a noticeable statement. When this occurs, an attacked party may return the violence with its own aggression or be subdued (or even consumed) by a stronger force. This is war.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, war is defined as "armed hostility, esp. between nations". This is very specifically defined. Generally, all disagreements which result in either loss of life or serious physical injury that are taken part in by small numbers of people are labelled as "fights" or "hostile disputes". Therefore, the Oxford definition as given above adds "esp. between nations" to its entry. This is to clarify that in fact war is the highest level of physical dispute which can be reached and acted upon violently.
With relativity to the current USA-Afghanistan crisis, all the stated principles above may be applied. The disagreement which the USA harbours is that of the location of Osama bin Laden, and which the Afghanis are refusing to reveal and thus allow the Americans to capture him.
This major split has been caused by terrorist attacks upon the USA's foremost finanacial concentration, the twin World Trade Centre towers, which both collapsed after hijacked planes flew into their sides. According to the US government, all reliable evidence is directing responsibility for the attacks towards bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of international terrorism.
Thus the USA wishes to claim their prime, and so far only, suspect for these atrocities. Bin Laden resides in Afghanistan, and the ruling power, Taliban, are as previously mentioned currently refusing to betray his postion and location. Thus, a fallout has occurred between these two opposing parties.
This has now escalated to a full-scale war, with both nations uniting under their respective leaders' policies. The USA wish to claim bin Laden by force; the Afghanis are attempting to hold their current position as his harbourer. Both nations have tried to establish allies, thus complicating the war further. Gradually each nation drawn into the conflict, either as an ally or a direct contender, will develop or resurrect a grievance against another, thus creating a chain reaction of violent events. This is war displayed in its chillingness, a seemingly unstoppable landslide of volatile provocations resulting only, quite truly, in a loss to every party involved.
For indeed, if one were to end the life of another in order to press his case, his argumentative ability would surely be weak. One, unable to convince within the bounds of reasoning that his belief is more acceptable than another's, simply ending the life of his enemy merely confirms his own short-sightedness and, although this act would indeed put a forced end the dispute, neither entity would be deemed successful.
In individual cases, minor disagreements may be settled quite readily. Sometimes, however, situations may escalate beyond the control of either party and result in either physical or emotional harm to both sides. A common way to resolve problems arising between two individuals is for each to respect one another's views and rights to them, or indeed one may impress upon the other his idea as being more acceptable or correct, and therefore end the basis for argument. Yet again, a combination of the two views may be reached and thus form a compromise.
Unfortunately some individuals' grievances have caused major physical/emotional harm, and sometimes even death, due to the volatility of the content being disagreed upon. Generally however, as already mentioned, respect of another's views and his/her right to them is an acceptable basis to curtail an argument from becoming out of reasonable control.
On a more collective level, disagreements are far harder to resolve and disperse of. If a group of ten opposes another ten's views, all the previous examples of the curtailment/escalation of an individual argument apply to every single entity involved in the dispute--all 20. Thus, there is a far greater chance that a lower amount of respect for a disagreeing party may be applied by at least one of either group of ten. This, quite naturally, creates confusion and a complexity which is not easily dealt with.
For this reason, when great numbers of people oppose each other on a common issue, it is to be expected that hostilities may be provoked by both resisting sides. It is also correct to say that there may be more than two disagreeing parties--there may be three or more. In fact, there is no limit to differences of opinion, which is the source of all disputes.
Thus, when a major dispersement of common opinion occurs, many people may take to physical violence in order to state their beliefs in an either a provocative manner or with the intention of making a noticeable statement. When this occurs, an attacked party may return the violence with its own aggression or be subdued (or even consumed) by a stronger force. This is war.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, war is defined as "armed hostility, esp. between nations". This is very specifically defined. Generally, all disagreements which result in either loss of life or serious physical injury that are taken part in by small numbers of people are labelled as "fights" or "hostile disputes". Therefore, the Oxford definition as given above adds "esp. between nations" to its entry. This is to clarify that in fact war is the highest level of physical dispute which can be reached and acted upon violently.
With relativity to the current USA-Afghanistan crisis, all the stated principles above may be applied. The disagreement which the USA harbours is that of the location of Osama bin Laden, and which the Afghanis are refusing to reveal and thus allow the Americans to capture him.
This major split has been caused by terrorist attacks upon the USA's foremost finanacial concentration, the twin World Trade Centre towers, which both collapsed after hijacked planes flew into their sides. According to the US government, all reliable evidence is directing responsibility for the attacks towards bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of international terrorism.
Thus the USA wishes to claim their prime, and so far only, suspect for these atrocities. Bin Laden resides in Afghanistan, and the ruling power, Taliban, are as previously mentioned currently refusing to betray his postion and location. Thus, a fallout has occurred between these two opposing parties.
This has now escalated to a full-scale war, with both nations uniting under their respective leaders' policies. The USA wish to claim bin Laden by force; the Afghanis are attempting to hold their current position as his harbourer. Both nations have tried to establish allies, thus complicating the war further. Gradually each nation drawn into the conflict, either as an ally or a direct contender, will develop or resurrect a grievance against another, thus creating a chain reaction of violent events. This is war displayed in its chillingness, a seemingly unstoppable landslide of volatile provocations resulting only, quite truly, in a loss to every party involved.
For indeed, if one were to end the life of another in order to press his case, his argumentative ability would surely be weak. One, unable to convince within the bounds of reasoning that his belief is more acceptable than another's, simply ending the life of his enemy merely confirms his own short-sightedness and, although this act would indeed put a forced end the dispute, neither entity would be deemed successful.
