I think the other side's argument is that war hinders human development, and their content is much richer. Therefore, to develop our views, we can only proceed from several points, such as the rapid economic development that will always come after the war. The other party will ask: does this mean that we want war? We can't fall into their trap, because in any case, peace is the foundation of development. At this time, we will narrow down the scope of this topic. We can say: please note that what we are debating today is the result of the war. From a historical perspective, that is, the rapid development after each war, no one can doubt this (then we can add a little more ourselves)

Regardless of the intentions of its sponsors, the obvious goal of the recent Iraq war always seems to be clear, and that is to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Now this goal has been achieved almost effortlessly. Because this is a typical American war: asymmetry. In other words, there is a saying in China that this is a war of "picking soft persimmons". But is defeating an opponent who is almost unable to fight back the whole or real purpose of this war? Who would believe it? Saddam Hussein didn't believe it. Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, including Bush and Blair didn't believe it. Nobody believed it. So, why? What caused this war to happen inevitably? There must be richer, more complicated and more interesting reasons behind this than the war has shown us on the surface. Therefore, it is far more meaningful to discuss it, point out the reasons and contents of the war and how it will affect us and the world than to study the war itself.

In the form of dialogue, The New Warring States deeply analyzes the influence of this war on world politics, economy and military affairs, and tries to outline the trend of global politics, economy and military affairs after the Iraq war.

The book basically adopts the attitude of game theory to look at and analyze problems. From the perspective of a non-cooperative game, the analysis model is very interesting. First of all, people think that the concept of war should be redefined. This is not a narrow war to destroy each other and occupy other people's territory, because now our war has become very broad, almost invisible and long-distance. It actually shows that economic competition can also turn into war. But the essence is the same. As long as it can finally make the survival of another country or another nation a problem, its effect is the same as that of war. This is an enlightening direction, which means that we have a new concept of war-total war. )

-Excerpts.

Then it is necessary to expand the definition of war (that is, sophistry) and turn war into = struggle = competition, which is simple.

Content: How can the development of commodity society be less competitive? (As long as you can make the other person tangle with you on this point, it will be easy) because it's all for your own good (history proves everything). Only when there is competition can we be eliminated and inject new vitality. /FL/200348 100 1 1。 ASP (refer to this paper, which is very classic).

I'm afraid the other side won't fall in and say, please don't confuse the definition of war = = and so on. That will be difficult, and the winning rate is very small.

But be prepared. If so, keep reading (what you read will make your head big and it is difficult to summarize).

"If we didn't see it with our own eyes, there was a real war in the form of absolute war in our time, then some people may doubt the practical significance of our views on the absolute nature of war. After a brief prelude to the French Revolution, Napoleon, who had no scruples, quickly pushed the war to this point. Under Napoleon's command, the war kept going until the other side failed, and the counterattack almost kept going. Isn't it natural and logical that all the logical conclusions drawn from this phenomenon will bring us back to the original concept of war? "

Clausewitz s Final Judgment on the Nature of Napoleonic Wars in the Form of Absolute Wars;

The form of war is determined not only by the pure concept of war, but also by everything else involved in war, that is, all the natural inertia and resistance of each part, the incompleteness of human beings, the imperfection of understanding and cowardice. We must adhere to the view that war and its forms come from thoughts, feelings and relationships that played a leading role at that time. If we don't want to be divorced from reality, then we must admit that even the absolute form of war, that is, the war launched by Napoleon, is the same. "

Obviously, another way of expressing Shashevsky's conclusion is that the "absolute war" in the original conceptual state will not appear in reality, and his attitude is very confident. Obviously, although he regarded the Napoleonic War as a "real war in the form of absolute war", he finally thought it was a real war and could not be equated with an "absolute war". Because "absolute war" is only "a direct logical conclusion based on two or three premises", it is a war in the state of "primitive concept" and is not interfered by realistic factors. Obviously, Kirchner regards this as the last watershed in defining "absolute war". Otherwise, "Napoleonic War in the form of absolute war" will not be finally rejected by "absolute war".

"Real war" refers to the concrete war produced by the interaction between "absolute war" in the logical world and various factors in the real world. It is characterized by "not the direct conflict between two mutually destructive factors, but the tension between two mutually separated factors, which only sparks in some small contacts". This is also the condition for Shashevsky to define "real war". However, in this way, it is difficult to divide the nature of the Napoleonic War, which conforms to the condition that "absolute war" uses violence until the outcome is decided, but does not conform to the condition of the initial conceptual state; It conforms to the condition of "real war" caused by realistic factors, but it does not conform to the condition of tension of separation, no direct conflict and only slight contact. Obviously, Shashevsky believes that the Napoleonic War does not belong to his strict definition of "absolute war" and "real war", but belongs to a real war with some characteristics of "absolute war".

In this way, there are actually two kinds of real wars in Kirchner's theory, one is a real war with the characteristics of "absolute war" and the other is a real war without the characteristics of "absolute war". From the perspective of "absolute war", the Napoleonic War can also be regarded as a concrete manifestation of "absolute war" in reality, but in any case, it is not equal to the original conceptual state of "absolute war" in the logical world.

(the above is mainly about what war is divided into absolute war and other suggestions to find the key points. )

(Answer each other's comparison of peace and war)

There is peace when there is war, and there is no peace without war. So it must be solved by force.

When Kangxi received Taiwan Province Province, Yao Qisheng said that peace talks should be held, but they should also be based on the station. What you get from the peace talks is far less true than what you get from the war! What an insightful sentence

War is a means, so don't use it easily until the critical moment.

I will definitely be Kun in World War I.

When we regard the fight against SARS as a "war", "SARS is a sudden war" and "a war without smoke", these are the languages repeatedly used by medical workers in Please Challenge. In this "war", the dauntless spirit of the vast number of medical staff who are not afraid of sacrifice and continue to fight is indeed touching. . . Add another sentence, "Is this war what our door yearns for and needs?"

Comparing the fight against SARS to "war" naturally makes sense. First of all, the SARS virus seriously threatens the health and life safety of all people in China and even all mankind, and is undoubtedly like a vicious enemy; Second, only when everyone is fully aware of the danger of SARS as an enemy will they be fully prepared for the battle; Third, only by arousing people's hatred of the "enemy" can we glow with unified will, national spirit and revolutionary heroism; Fourth, people in China are always sloppy, tired, wrangling and inefficient. Only by establishing "wartime thinking" and wartime state can we ban it, seize time with the raging SARS virus in material support and coordinated operations, and improve the organizational efficiency of fighting SARS. Perhaps it is because the fight against SARS is regarded as a war that a wartime atmosphere of positive challenge, no fear of sacrifice, courage and courage has been created among medical staff, which will have a far-reaching impact on reshaping the image of angels in white and improving the relationship between doctors and patients.

Well, paying too much will make you more confused. You want me to help you find out more about the money spent in the war. Finding those numbers will only make the other person happier. Those are all good for them, aren't they? Therefore, I suggest you use the phrase "war = struggle = competition" more often. It is really impossible to confront them head-on. This debate is also a small war, isn't it?

I can only give some suggestions. It is you who really organize and debate. Since my ability is limited, I'll give you so much first.

Come on! I know you must be great! ! :)

-Author: Vivider joined Cai Bo on Tuesday, May 2005 10.