[scottLobster]

So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?

[AnimalMuppet]

> So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and?

And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias.

> It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things.

Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horrible. Only fight it when the alternative is even more horrible (which is not never).

[scottLobster]

Strange, because in this thread the closest thing to calling war "wonderful" I've seen is "Sometimes, as sad as it is to imagine, I think you need a good war to refresh a country..."

Things that are wonderful aren't sad to imagine. Nor am I saying anything resembling calling a war "wonderful". I hear a lot of accusations and assumptions of intent with few real arguments other than "war bad".

From where I sit the conversation appears to go like:

  Person 1: War bad.
  Person 2: War sometimes good in certain contexts...
  Person 1: NO! WAR ALWAYS BAD YOU FASCIST COWARD!!!

Shockingly I remain unmoved.