Losing Game or Trojan Horse? War as a Suppression Tool
Somehow in the vein of some ancient character between the historical and the mythological, some say that war is a good thing in itself. And somehow in the vein of what is hailed as cynical realism, some others say that war is a good thing for some. These are either suppressive, seriously PTS, or seriously bewildered individuals. That war may even produce some “profit” for quite a few criminals has, is, and will never be enough to offset the tragedy, destruction, butchering, massacre, starving, misery and deprivation for almost all the others.
But perhaps stating that war is a suppressive act is less obvious than it may appear at first sight, as there’s even more to it than already meets the eye.
Here and there, one way or another, the idea has been set forth that war is a game where everybody loses. Indeed this may be rather true for both losers and winners as well: should winners draw up a realistic profit and loss account, whether as a nation or as individuals, its net result would be seriously uncertain to say the least. After all, you’d only have to survey them asking if they were glad of having had a war and if they’d fancy another ride on that merry−go−round. Moreover, if the profit and loss account were drawn up more honestly and took into account the full scope of what human beings deem valuable – the non−material as much as the material – that net result would not be uncertain any more.
We know humanoids are unaware enough to engage in activities where everybody loses, but is that all? Or rather, are there perhaps further deeper, hidden, less unaware reasons? I mean, are we really sure that war is a loss for each and every party involved?