It's a play on words. The "right" and "left" associated as in directions. "Right" can also mean "correct" or "justified.

" "Left" can also mean "remaining."

War does not determine who is correct (right)

War determines who remains afterward (left)

So instead of saying "War does not determine who is right, it determines who is wrong . . . ," which is what we might at first expect, it plays with the words and is meant to be ironic.

It just means the purpose is to win. It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove who is "right", or "good", or anything else. If anything, it only shows who was the strongest, best equipped, best supplied, or had the best strategies and tactics, etc.

The purpose of war is to gain things or protect things. The propaganda crap we are fed about honor, or other nebulous calls, is just that: crap, and it comes from all the sides.

The only value of war is to gain or protect land and/or its resources. That's why they have always been fought, why they are fought today, and why they should be fought.

Now, yet again I'll note: if you don't want war, stop overpopulating beyond resources for the coming generations. When we pump out more babies than today's resource recovery will stretch for their descendants, war is the only chance to cover those descendants' needs.

Country's don't sit down to listen to each other in order to have peace, and to see each others side of the story. It's just who has the largest army and which every one is standing at the end wins. Basically, they fight with their guns and other weapons instead of their most powerful muscle in their bodies, their brains. It is true that the victor of a war is not necessarily the one who is morally right. The army with the most strength wins. However, being right has it's advantages.

EFFECT OF WAR
War's long-term effects Soldiers not only suffered on the battlefield. Veterans often needed long-term care owing to the physical and psychological impact of war. The close proximity of people in wartime conditions meant diseases such as tuberculosis could easily spread. The exertion of battle could highlight other health problems including asthma and heart conditions. Some conditions such as trench foot, an infection of the feet caused by cold, wet and unsanitary conditions, were very specific to the water-filled trenches of the First World War (1914-18).

Emotional problems caused by war: shell shock In addition to physical problems either exacerbated or caused by war, emotional problems could also be brought on by battle. The First World War is often associated with the syndrome called shell shock. This was originally believed to have a physical origin, caused by the impact of loud shelling. However, it became clear that soldiers who had never been exposed to shells were developing the same symptoms. During the horrendous Battle of the Somme in 1916, there was a severe increase in the number of cases. Little sympathy for shell-shocked soldiers in the First World War Because of its psychological origins, shell shock was defined as a neurosis, and there was little sympathy for shell-shocked soldiers. Many boys lied about their age to get into the British Army, and many of the fighting forces were ill equipped to deal with the carnage of the western front. Some refused to fight and were shot for cowardice, while others suffered the effects of shell shock for many years afterwards. In the First World War, 306 British soldiers were executed for cowardice - many of these look likely to receive posthumous pardons from the British government.

Psychological testing: assessing the suitability of soldiers During the Second World War (1939-45) psychiatrists in the United States used psychological testing to determine a recruits suitability to be a soldier. Despite these tests, the effects of battle were still hard on soldiers. Many demonstrated symptoms of high levels of stress, a condition referred to as battle fatigue. These soldiers were removed from the fighting and rested. More women were closer to the front lines than in previous wars, but the authorities still thought they were less suited to being close to the fighting than men. A number of men and women were discharged from the forces in the Second World War as they were considered unsuitable for the military.

War syndromes: the impact of war on behaviour and the mind Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was the term used after 1980 to explain the effect of war on soldiers and was later used outside the military to describe the impact of a traumatic event on an individual. However, there is a long history of different diagnoses used to try and get to grips with the psychological impact of war. The most recent war syndromes include Gulf War syndrome, experienced mainly by American and British soldiers who fought in the 1991 Gulf War.

Wartime health of populations: radiation in Japan War can also have a dramatic impact on the health of civilian populations. The hydrogen bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a horrendous immediate impact, killing thousands. They also had long-term effects on the population. Radiation sickness and birth defects of children were problems experienced long after the buildings destroyed by the bomb were rebuilt.

Children and war Civilians, particularly children, can also suffer the effects of trauma. Child psychoanalysisemerged during the Second World War from the work of Anna Freud, psychoanalyst and daughter of Sigmund Freud. She set up a centre for young war victims called the Hampstead War Nursery. Here the children separated from their parents were given foster care. After the war this continued at the Bulldogs Bank Home, an orphanage that was run by Freuds colleagues and which took care of children who had survived the concentration camps.

The after effects of war for the population Civilian populations often have to deal with the after effects of war. They include damage to infrastructure such as hospitals and to medical care, often a result of a shortage of doctors. A number of countries, especially in Asia, have had to deal with the devastating effects of land mines on the local population. Facts:A lot of Americans look at World War II from the American perspective, which in a lot of ways wasn't so bad, beyond rationing. In Europe, lives of civilians were impacted directly and gravely.

During the war, factories stopped producing many durable goods and switched to arms manufacturing. You couldn't buy a new car during World War II, they didn't even make them.

Essential things were rationed: gasoline, heating oil, cooking oil, rubber tires, etc. Wars typically bring inflation, or in the case of Europe, hyperinflation. That's when people had to bring a wheelbarrow of

cash (literally) to buy a loaf of bread, and two wheelbarrows if they waited until after work...

Loss of electricity, loss of access to water, loss of access to medicine; these frequently accompany wars. This affects the health of all civilians.

Crimes like murder, looting, and rape often occur in warzones.

Property destruction can be rampant. All of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were erased in an instant in the Pacific War, many battle-torn cities in Europe *looked* like an atomic bomb had hit. That means, people have lost their shops, stores, livelihoods, homes.

War comes at an enormous cost to those who live within the warzone, near it, and even overseas from it.

INCREASE IN ALLOCATIONS TO THE DEFENCE BUDGET

Humanity will always go to war, it is human nature. We must not be complacent. Eternal vigilance is the only thing that keeps us safe.

Totalitarian Communist China is consumed with nationalist fervor and expansionist thirst. It is aiming to increase its Naval spending at a rate of three times its rate of GDP growth (its GDP growth is already very high).

America must NOT become complacent. Yes Government spending needs to be cut, but it needs to be cut in the areas of the health, education and welfare. Yet the very survival of the American Nation depends on the Military, and the world is becoming more dangerous, so Military spending MUST be increased.

Don't think war will never happen again. Countless times throughout history entire populations have been slain and/or enslaved, because they neglected to spend enough money on their Defence capabilities.

The world is not staying still. Those people on the No side who think America could stop spending on Defence for thirty years and still be safe are delusional. The world is changing RAPIDLY, and its a DANGEROUS world.

The ONLY way to be safe is ETERNAL VIGILANCE. We must INCREASE our Defence spending, because war is inevitable and we must be prepared for it when that day comes.

You know, Neville Chamberlain wanted to cut Defence spending in Britain. "Appease Hitler" he said, "there will be peace in our time" he cried. He was sure of it.

That was in 1938.

The world is a dangerous place, and getting more dangerous with every year. Economic turmoil ALWAYS leads to wars. ALWAYS. And the world is in economic turmoil NOW. There can be no doubt that the next major war will be upon us within a few years.

WE MUST BE PREPARED. Its a life or death matter. I really think those people on the No side are traitors. They would rather waste tax payers money on health, education and welfare rather than fund what is the only really legitimate role of the Government in the first place, i.e. Defence!

Many many many MANY times throughout history, entire populations of people of been slain and/or enslaved because they didn't spend enough money on Defence.

Don't think it'll never happen again. I know what humanity is like. In the main humans are good and virtuous, but occasionally, humanity is capable of great great evil.

The day will come again when the choice will have to be made between liberty and slavery, between freedom and death, between war and extermination.

And it will come again sooner than you think. Just because the world has been relatively peaceful for the last 67-odd years, don't take it for granted that it will indefinately be peaceful for the foreseable future. Europe enjoyed 99 years of relative peace post the Napoleonic period, but then war broke out again, on a scale hithero unheard of.

It will happen again, humankind has inherent tendencies that play out over and over and over every few generations. There's nothing that can be done, don't think the UN or the EU or anything will stop the inevitable from happening.

No. The only option is ETERNAL VIGILANCE. Never lay down our guard. Never leave ourselves vulnerable. Like Sun Tzu in the Art of War says, first make ourselves invulnerable, THEN look to our options.

The world is getting much much more dangerous now as we move deeper into the 21st century. Totalitarian Communist China is consumed with hyper-nationalist fervour and expansionist thirst. It is bullying its neighbours and it intends to grow its Naval spending at three times the rate of its GDP growth per year (and it's GDP growth per year is already very high).

THE CRISIS IN ARAB WORLD, INDO PAK BILATERAL ISSUES, US CONFLICTS IN AFGHANISTAN
THE CRISIS IN ARAB WORLD Series of military conflicts fought between various Arab countries and Israel (194849, 1956, 1967, 196970, 1973, and 1982). The first war (194849) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations' partition of Palestine. Protesting this move, five Arab countries Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syriaattacked Israel. The conflict ended with Israel gaining considerable territory. The 1956 Suez Crisis began after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. A French, British, and Israeli coalition attacked Egypt and occupied the canal zone but soon withdrew under international pressure. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The war ended with the Israel occupying substantial amounts of Arab territory. An undeclared war of attrition (196970) was fought between Egypt and Israel along the Suez Canal and ended with the help of international diplomacy. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), but, despite early Arab success, the conflict ended inconclusively. In 1979 Egypt made peace with Israel. In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon in order to expel Palestinian guerrillas based there. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon by 1985 but maintained a narrow buffer zone inside that country until 2000. 2010present Following the latest round of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, 13 Palestinian militant movements led by Hamas initiated a terror campaign designed to derail and disrupt the negotiations. Attacks on Israelis have increased since August 2010, after 4 Israeli civilians were killed by Hamas militants. Palestinian militants have increased the frequency of rocket attacks aimed at Israelis. On August 2, Hamas militants launched seven Katyusha rockets at Eilat and Aqaba, killing one Jordanian civilian and wounding 4 others. Intermittent fighting continued since then, including 680 rocket attacks on Israel in 2011. On November 14, 2012, Israel killed Ahmed Jabari, a leader of Hamas's military wing, launching Operation Pillar of Cloud. Hamas and Israel agreed to an Egyptian-mediated ceasefire on November 21. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said that 158 Palestinians were killed during the operation, of which: 102 were civilians, 55 were militants and one was a policeman; 30 were children and 13 were women. B'Tselem stated that according to its initial findings, which covered only the period between 14 and 19 November, 102 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, 40 of them civilians. According to Israeli figures, 120 combatants and 57 civilians were killed. International outcry ensued, with many criticizing Israel for what much of the international community perceived as a disproportionately violent response. Protests took place on hundreds of college campuses across the U.S., and in front of the Israeli

consulate in New York. Additional protests took place throughout the Middle East, throughout Europe, and in parts of South America. However, the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Netherlands expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself, and/or condemned the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

Cost of conflict A report by Strategic Foresight Group has estimated the opportunity cost of conflict for the Middle East from 19912010 at $12 trillion. The report's opportunity cost calculates the peace GDP of countries in the Middle East by comparing the current GDP to the potential GDP in times of peace. Israel's share is almost $1 trillion, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia having approximately $2.2 and $4.5 trillion, respectively. In other words, had there been peace and cooperation between Israel and Arab League nations since 1991, the average Israeli citizen would be earning over $44,000 instead of $23,000 in 2010. In terms of the human cost, it is estimated that the conflict has taken 92,000 lives (74,000 military and 18,000 civilian from 1945 to 1995). From September 29, 2000 to October 2, 2012, 7,714 deaths occurred as a direct result of the conflict. Of these deaths, 6,617 Palestinians and 1,097 Israelis were killed. In the same time period, 1,447 Palestinian children were killed, along with 129 Israeli children. It should be noted that the numbers do not include the significant number of Palestinians who died as a result of being unable to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, border closures, etc. The numbers also do not include Israeli troops who were killed by friendly fire, nor Palestinian militants killed by explosives set on their person.

INDO PAK BILATERAL ISSUES Relations between India and Pakistan have been strained by a number of historical and political issues, and are defined by the violent partition of British India in 1947, the Kashmir dispute and the numerous military conflicts fought between the two nations. Consequently, even though the two South Asian nations share historic, cultural, geographic, and economic links, their relationship has been plagued by hostility and suspicion. After the dissolution of the British Raj in 1947, two new sovereign nations were formedthe Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The subsequent partition of the former British India displaced up to 12.5 million people, with estimates of loss of life varying from several hundred thousand to a million. India emerged as a secular nation with a Hindu majority population and a large Muslim minority while Pakistan was established as an Islamic republic with an overwhelming Muslim majority population. Soon after their independence, India and Pakistan established diplomatic relations but the violent partition and numerous territorial disputes would overshadow their relationship. Since their independence, the two countries have fought three major wars, one undeclared war and have been involved in numerous armed skirmishes and military standoffs. The Kashmir dispute is the main centrepoint of all of these conflicts with the exception of the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). There have been numerous attempts to improve the relationshipnotably, the Shimla summit, the Agra summit and the Lahore summit. Since the early 1980s, relations between the two nations soured particularly after the Siachen conflict, the intensification of Kashmir insurgency in

1989, Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 and the 1999 Kargil war. Certainconfidence-building measures such as the 2003 ceasefire agreement and the DelhiLahore Bus service were successful in deescalating tensions. However, these efforts have been impeded by periodic terrorist attacks. The 2001 Indian Parliament attack almost brought the two nations on the brink of a nuclear war. The 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, which killed 68 civilians (most of whom were Pakistani), was also a crucial point in relations. Additionally, the 2008 Mumbai attacks carried out by Pakistani militants resulted in a severe blow to the ongoing India-Pakistan peace talks. According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 11% of Indians view Pakistan's influence positively, with 45% expressing a negative view, while 19% of Pakistanis view India's influence positively, with 54% expressing a negative view.

An increasing number of people believe that a stable Pakistan is in Indias best interests. This is a universal truism. To reach an agreement you must negotiate with one body that has a monopoly over state power. If its a free-for-all, an agreement is not worth the piece of paper its on. As such, only a stable Pakistan can be an effective negotiating power.

Mutual security concerns the main point of contention between India and Pakistan Security is a problem, but it is never an independent issue. Take, for example, the war in Afghanistan, which is another source of contention between India and Pakistan. Pakistan regards Afghanistan as falling within its sphere of influence and views any Indian interference as strategically harmful. There are security concerns in the sense that the Durand Line is a porous border, but there are larger dynamics at play here as well. Indias recent push towards militarisation have on bilateral relations India wants to maintain parity with China, hence the militarisation. This can cut both ways with regards to Pakistan. On the one hand, the dispute with Pakistan could become a huge distraction that India seeks to rid itself of. Pakistan cannot militarily defeat India, but it can be a significant nuisance that ties up Indian forces etc. On the other hand, India might decide that its aim to become a regional power is best furthered by finally coming to terms with Pakistan.

China influence the India-Pakistan dynamic China wants to maintain some balance of power in South Asia; Beijing doesnt want India to dominate the region. But the Chinese position towards Pakistan has undergone a radical change since the 1980s. On the Kashmir issue, for example, China no longer supports Pakistans position, and instead adopts the exact same position as the United States or Britainthat Kashmir is a disputed territory and that India and Pakistan should solve the problem through negotiation. China no longer says anything about upholding the UN resolution supporting Pakistans case. In a separate context, China has also become very alarmed by the infiltration of violent extremist groups [allegedly trained in Pakistan] into its northwestern Xinjiang region. That said, in my opinion, the impact of Chinas own interests on the Indo-Pak equation is exaggerated. It is true that China wants access to ports in the Gulf region, from where the bulk of its oil comes. But the idea that the Chinese want a land route to the Arabian Sea (via Pakistan) is far-fetched. Such a route cannot be economically viable not only because sea transport is so much cheaper, but also because Chinas economic and industrial hubs are on the eastern side of the country. Taking goods westwards across China to get to the Arabian Sea is not a serious proposition.

Trade facilitate improved India-Pakistan relations India and Pakistan have such little economic contact that if the situation between the two countries worsens, no group on either side of the border complains that it is being adversely affectedno one suffers a loss if relations remain strained, and this is a problem. Consider China and Taiwan as a counterpoint: that situation is even more politically explosive than Kashmir because at least India and Pakistan have respected international borders (with the exception of the Line of Control). But trade between China and Taiwan has boomed, creating a huge stake in the bilateral relationship. Given the huge border between India and Pakistan, too many fruitful opportunities for beneficial trade are being missed out.

Competition for increasingly scarce water resources in South Asia further strain India-Pakistan relations The growing shortage of water is a cause of concern across Asia, not just for India and Pakistan. In this context, the Indus Water Treaty has been a major triumph, but it crucially depends on understanding and interpretation. Going forward, it is very easy for India to divert Pakistans water, especially from the Jhelum River. Given that the head works of the three eastern tributaries of the Indus are in India, there could be new disputes in the future.

India-Pakistan relations tenor dictated by domestic politics on both sides of the border Domestic political concerns do play a major role in dictating the state of the relationship. For example, in India case it is easier for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to come to an agreement with Pakistan because they cannot be attacked from the right, whereas Congress has to tread more carefully. The ideal combination for making significant gains towards improving ties occurred when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the prime minster of India and General Pervez Musharraf was the president of Pakistan. Vajpayee was definitely committed to improving relations with Pakistan and Musharraf went so far as to offer major concessions. But things did not work out for various reasonsIndians couldnt grasp the radicalism of Musharrafs offers, and the Kargil War was continuing to have a destructive impact.

Opportunities exist for improving India-Pakistan bilateral ties For India, energy will be key to the regional equation. India is the main energy consumer in the region while Iran and Central Asia have surplus energy to offer. Pakistan offers the main transport route for energy to India, which could be an incentive for improving ties.

US CONFLICTS IN AFGHANISTAN The War in Afghanistan (2001present) refers to the intervention in the Afghan Civil War by the United States and its allies, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to dismantle AlQaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden and to remove from power the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist regime led by MullahMohammed Omar, which at the time controlled 90% of Afghanistan and hosted Al-Qaeda leadership. U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership which was supporting the Taliban in its war with the Northern Alliance. The Taliban recommended that bin Laden leave the country but declined to extradite him without evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The United States refused to negotiate and launched Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 with the United Kingdom, later joined by Canada, Australia, France and other mainly western allies, to attack the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in conjunction with the Northern Alliance. The U.S. and its allies quickly drove the Taliban from power and captured all major cities and towns in the country. Many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders escaped to neighboring Pakistan or retreated to rural or remote mountainous regions. In December 2001, the U.N. Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to oversee security in the country and train the Afghan National Army. At the Bonn Conference in December 2001, Hamid Karzai was selected to head the Afghan Interim Administration, which after a loya jirga in Kabul in June 2002, became the Afghan Transitional Administration. In the popular elections of 2004, Karzai was elected the president of the new permanent Afghan government, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. In 2003, NATO assumed leadership of ISAF, included troops from 43 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force. Only a portion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan operate under NATO command; the rest remained under direct American command. Mullah Omar reorganized the Taliban movement and launched the insurgencyagainst the Afghan government and ISAF forces in the spring of 2003. Though vastly outgunned and outnumbered by NATO forces and the Afghan National Army, the Taliban and its allies, most notably the Haqqani Network and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, have waged asymmetric warfare with guerilla raids and ambushes in the countryside,suicide attacks against urban targets, and turncoat killings against coalition forces. The Taliban exploited the weak administration of the Afghan government, among the most corrupt in the world, to reassert influence across rural areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan. NATO countries responded in 2006 by increasing troops for operations to "clear and hold" villages and "nation building" projects to "win hearts and minds". While NATO forces continued to battle the Taliban insurgency, the war expanded into the tribal areas of neighboring North-West Pakistan. In 2004, the Pakistani Army began to clash with local tribes hosting

Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. The U.S. military began to launch air strikes and then drone strikes into the region, targeting at first Al-Qaeda and later the local "Pakistan Taliban" leaders, which launched an insurgency in Waziristan in 2007. On 2 May 2011, U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. On 21 May 2012 the leaders of the NATO-member countries endorsed an exit strategy for removing NATO soldiers from Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians have lost their lives in the war. U.S. Casualties In Afghanistan Rise Past 2,000 As Long-Term Costs Of War Remain Unknown They have often come in the form of a bright flash, a deafening thunderclap and a concussive blast wave that leaves the survivors dazed or unconscious and the wounded and dead sprawled in the wreckage caused by a roadside bomb, or Improvised Explosive Device, the main cause of American casualties in Afghanistan. But whether caused by IED, or rocket-propelled grenade, or automatic rifle fire, the casualties are mounting toward a grim milestone. According to a count by the Associated Press, two thousand Americans have given their lives in Afghanistan during a war that has lasted almost 11 years. The Pentagon announced the latest casualty Sunday: Sgt. 1st Class Riley G. Stephens, a 39-year-old from Tolar, in north central Texas. Assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group out of Fort Bragg, N.C., he was killed by enemy small arms fire, the Pentagon said. American battle casualties have mounted steadily despite a frenetic, decade-long effort by the Pentagon to defeat or defend against the deadly IEDs, often primitive devices made of homemade explosives buried in a plastic bucket, wired to detonation cord with two cast-off flashlight batteries. Just over 40 percent of American battle casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IEDs, according to a count by the Brookings Institution. Until recently, the Defense Department had routinely published similar data on the causes of battlefield casualties, but the data was taken off its website because of its sensitive nature, an official told The Huffington Post. While the official Defense Department count of American deaths in Afghanistan, currently at 1,657, lags behind the AP count, both vastly understate the tragedy and the true human cost of war. American battle casualties, including dead and wounded, have mounted to 55,216 since the United States launched a war in Afghanistan 11 years ago and then initiated eight years of deadly fighting in Iraq by invading in 2003.

The roster of American wounded -- over 17,000 in Afghanistan and 32,000 in Iraq -- include some 17,000 young Americans with multiple severe wounds. Through July 2012, the Defense Department recorded 1,655 amputations due to battle injuries, acording to data drawn up for The Huffington Post by the U.S. Army Surgeon General. The wounds include those with disabling genital wounds. But the carnage spreads far beyond physical wounds. According to the Armed Forces Health Survillance Center, 3,299 American troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have been diagnosed with Traumatic Brain Injury since 2003. That data almost certainly understates the number suffering from mild, moderate or severe brain injury because the military didn't begin testing for TBI on the battlefield until 2007. Even now, precise diagnosis of TBI is not possible, according to the Defense Department's senior TBI specialist. In cold cash, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers $1.4 trillion. But that's only a down payment, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the cost of health care for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans will reach between $40 billion and $55 billion. Other demands for education, housing and pension benefits will drive the Department of Veterans Affairs' long-term costs into the trillions of dollars, some officials believe. But any measure of the war's dead, including some 20,000 Afghan civilians and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians, will necessarily fall far short of the true cost of young lives cut off, of grieving families, of children without a parent. Nor can the burden on the survivors, the 2.5 million Americans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, be properly weighed. Even senior officials at the Pentagon and the VA say privately they cannot accurately describe what life will be like for the severely wounded and their families, who face decades of complex medical care and uncertain rehabilitation. While the technology of prosthetic limbs has advanced dramatically since 2001, the long-term effects of living with artificial limbs is not known. Nor are the long-term physical and emotional costs of those who have suffered deep burns in IED explosions and are living with extensive and often painful scarring. Even less is known about the long-term effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. Recent studies have suggested that some forms of TBI may subject the wounded to a greater likelihood of degenerative brain disease later in life. But few long-term studies have been completed and the Obama administration recently announced a $100 million boost in research on military brain injury.

LEADERS ACTIVALY INVOLVED IN PEACE TALKS IN AREAS OF CONFLICT

Peace begets peace. War begets war. When our leaders learn how to achieve peace by peaceful means, in due time we will have peace in the entire world. The underlying cause of war is fear, ignorance, greed, selfishness, and the lust for power. Truth is the ultimate solution.

Peace Links urges President Bush to include peacemakers along with military advisors in discussions about terrorist attacks. Here is their recommended list:

Kofi Annan, Former Secretary General of the United Nations KOFI ANNAN joined the United Nations in 1962. He rose to become secretary-general and served two terms, from 1997 to 2006. A number of important changes took place within the organisation under Mr Annans leadership. He played a pivotal role in helping to create the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. In 2005, he encouraged members to accept the Responsibility to Protect, which calls upon states to defend individuals from crimes against humanity. Mr Annan was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 2001, jointly with the UN. In his new memoir, Interventions: A Life in War and Peace, Mr Annan speaks candidly about a career spent trying to persuade governments to make peace. He points out how the UN has, on occasion, failed to protect the rights of the peoples, as laid out in the original charter of the organisation, written in 1945. Most recently, Mr Annan was the UN-Arab League joint special envoy to Syria, a post he resigned in August. Mr Annan spoke to The Economist about Syria, talking to tyrants and how to fix the Security Council. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica, Nobel Peace Prize 1987 scar Arias Snchez (born 13 September 1940) is a Costa Rican politician who

was President of Costa Rica from 2006 to 2010. He previously served as President from 1986 to 1990 and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars then raging in several other Central American countries.

He is also a recipient of the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism and a trustee of Economists for Peace and Security. In 2003, he was elected to the Board of Directors of theInternational Criminal Court's TrustFund for Victims. He is also currently a member of the Club de Madrid, a nonprofit composed of 81 former leaders of democratic states, that works to strengthen democratic institutions.

Betty Bumpers, founder of Peace Links Elizabeth Callan Flanagan "Betty" Bumpers (born January 11, 1925) is the wife of Dale Bumpers, former U.S. Senator and Governor of Arkansas, and is known as an effective advocate for childhood immunizations and world peace. A 1981 conversation with her college-student daughter, Brooke, inspired Betty Bumpers to become a peace activist, focused on ending the nuclear weapons race. While driving together to Arkansas from Washington, DC, they crossed the Clinch River, the namesake of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, leading Brooke to ask her mother what the family would do in a nuclear war or the aftermath of a nuclear disaster. Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) is an American politician who served as the 39th President of the United States (19771981) and was awarded the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, the only U.S. President to have received the Prize after leaving office. Before he became President, Carter, a Democrat, served as a U.S. Naval officer, was a peanut farmer, served two terms as a Georgia State Senator and one as Governor of Georgia (19711975). During Carter's term as President, he created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. He took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term. The end of his presidential tenure was marked by the 19791981 Iran hostage crisis, the 1979 energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow (the only U.S. boycott in Olympic history), and the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington state. By 1980, Carter's popularity had eroded. He survived a primary challenge against Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in the 1980 election, but lost the election to Ronald Reagan,

the Republican candidate. On January 20, 1981, minutes after Carter's term in office ended, the 52 U.S. captives held at the U.S. embassy in Iran were released, ending the 444-day Iran hostage crisis. After leaving office, Carter and his wife Rosalynn founded the Carter Center in 1982, a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization that works to advance human rights. He has traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. Carter is a key figure in the Habitat for Humanityproject, and also remains particularly vocal on the IsraeliPalestinian conflict.

Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, Nobel Peace Prize 1989 The 14th Dalai Lama (religious name: Tenzin Gyatso, shortened from Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso, born Lhamo Dondrub, 6 July 1935) is the 14th and current Dalai Lama, as well as the longest lived incumbent. Dalai Lamas are the head monks of the Gelugpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, and is also well known for his lifelong advocacy for Tibetans inside and outside Tibet. The Dalai Lama was born in Taktser, Qinghai (also known to Tibetans as Amdo), and was selected as the rebirth of the 13th Dalai Lama two years later, although he was only formally recognized as the 14th Dalai Lama on 17 November 1950, at the age of 15. The Gelug school's government administered an area roughly corresponding to the Tibet Autonomous Region just as the nascent People's Republic of China wished to assert central control over it. There is a dispute over whether the respective governments reached an agreement for a joint Chinese-Tibetan administration. During the 1959 Tibetan uprising, which China regards as an uprising of feudal landlords, the Dalai Lama, who regards the uprising as an expression of widespread discontent, fled to India, where he denounced the People's Republic and established a Tibetan government in exile. He has since traveled the world, advocating for the welfare of Tibetans, teaching Tibetan Buddhism and talking about the importance of compassion as the source of a happy life. Around the world, institutions face pressure from China not to accept him. He has spoken about the

environment, economics, women's dialog, physics, astronomy, reproductive various Mahayana and Vajrayana topics.

rights, non-violence, interfaith health, sexuality along with

Father Theodore Hesburgh, former President of Notre Dame University The Rev. Theodore Martin Hesburgh, CSC, STD (born May 25, 1917), a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross, is President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame. He is the namesake for TIAA-CREF's Hesburgh Award.

Hesburgh grew up in Syracuse and had wished to become a priest since early childhood. He studied at Notre Dame until his seminary sent him to Italy. He studied in Rome until he was forced to leave due to the outbreak of World War II. He graduated from The Catholic University of America in 1945, having earned a Doctorate in Sacred Theology. He became executive vice-president in 1949 and served in that position for 3 years.

Aung Sun Suu Kyi, leader of the democracy movement in Burma, Nobel Peace Prize 1991 Aung San Suu Kyi MP AC : born 19 June 1945) is a Burmeseopposition politician

and chairperson of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in Burma. In the 1990 general election, the NLD won 59% of the national votes and 81% (392 of 485) of the seats in Parliament. She had, however, already been detained under house arrest before the elections. She remained under house arrest in Burma for almost 15 of the 21 years from 20 July 1989 until her most recent release on 13 November 2010, becoming one of the world's most prominent political prisoners. Suu Kyi received the Rafto Prize and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. In 1992 she was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding by the government of India and the International Simn Bolvar Prize from the government of Venezuela. In 2007, the Government of Canada made her an honorary citizen of that country, the fourth person ever to receive the honour. In 2011, she was awarded the Wallenberg Medal. On 19 September 2012, Aung San Suu Kyi was also presented with the Congressional Gold Medal, which is, along with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States. On 1 April 2012, her party, the National League for Democracy, announced that she was elected to the Pyithu Hluttaw, the lower house of the Burmese parliament, representing

theconstituency of Kawhmu; her party also won 43 of the 45 vacant seats in the lower house. The election results were confirmed by the official electoral commission the following day. On 6 June 2013, Suu Kyi announced on the World Economic Forums website that she wants to run for the presidency in Myanmar's 2015 elections.

Dr. Desmond Tutu, South African bishop, Nobel Peace Prize 1984 Desmond Mpilo Tutu (born 7 October 1931) is a South African social rights activist and retired Anglican bishop who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. He was the first black South African Archbishop of Cape Town and primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa (now the Anglican Church of Southern Africa).

Tutu has been active in the defence of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. He has campaigned to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, poverty, racism, sexism, the

imprisonment of Bradley Manning, homophobia and transphobia. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984; the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism in 1986; the Pacem in Terris Award in 1987; the Sydney Peace Prize in 1999; the Gandhi Peace Prize in 2007; and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. He has also compiled several books of his speeches and sayings.

Elie Wiesel, author, Nobel Peace Prize 1986 Eliezer "Elie" Wiesel KBE (/li vzl/; born September 30, 1928) is a Romanian-born JewishAmerican professor and political activist. He is the author of 57 books, including Night, a work based on his experiences as a prisoner in the Auschwitz, Buna, and Buchenwald concentration camps. Wiesel is also the Advisory Board chairman of the newspaper Algemeiner Journal. When Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a "messenger to mankind," stating that through his struggle to come to terms with "his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler's death camps", as well as his "practical work in the cause of peace", Wiesel had delivered a powerful message "of peace, atonement and human dignity" to humanity.

In summary, our leaders need to change their mindset from satisfying and supporting allies to achieving peace and making friends with other nations. Perhaps our leaders believe that creating and supporting allies is a way of enhancing our national security. Let's face it. Developing allies is another way of strengthening our military position in the world; it's a way of getting ready for war; it's a way of being in a dominate position. Thus, the focus is on war, rather than focusing on achieving peace by peaceful means. Our goal should be making genuine friendships with other nations. China, Russian, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba would be excellent places to start. However, it must be understood: Genuine friendships do not exist where there is a hidden agenda. Would not it be more helpful to be genuine friends (rather than pretending to be) with both China and Taiwan, rather than trying to be an ally with Taiwan? Doesn't being an ally with Taiwan suggest supporting Taiwan against China? This must be what the leaders of China believe. Also, remember that Iranian president Ahmadinejad requested meetings with both former president Bush and also president Barack Obama. His desire is to have peaceful relations with the United

States and for spreading peace to the entire world. Would not it be far more beneficial would not this be in agreement with the desires of the American people to meet and reason together with president Ahmadinejad rather than to do what our ally Saudi Arabia requested that we do: "Cut off the head of the snake." Could this be at least a part of the explanation for refusing to meet and talk with president Ahmadinejad? In his latest speech (September 2010) to the UN General Assembly, president Ahmadinejad said: "Mans disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self. ... Human instinct, then, replaced true human nature. ... The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity." He also said, "Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels. The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] is mandated to provide member States with technical and legal support. The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament.

WAGING WAR IS IT NECESSARY AT TIMES?

This is a question that is very difficult to answer, I feel it is wrong by principle but very necessary for the greater good of a society. War is necessary when the outcome benefits the greater good of the people who are involved, for example in feudal Japan the country was split into numerous factions with different warlords called shoguns who ruled certain areas. These warlords would war with each other over trivial matters with no apparent end to the cycle of pointless deaths.

One shogun decided that he would put an end to this and unite the country, to do this he waged war on every warlord one by one. In the end he became the leader of the country and put an end to all the pointless wars between the warlords. The war that was waged was necessary for the country and for the people of Japan to be at peace.

There are many instances when this has been the case, countries like China, England, Egypt and even the United States have all fought wars for the greater good of the people of those countries.

I think when a society is in chaos or oppressed the only outcome will be war, under those circumstances war is necessary for the preservation of that society in the long run. Self preservation is instinctive in all of us, people will go to many extents for self preservation. When a group of people are put in a situation where all are at risk that self preservation turns into a social preservation, at that point that society is willing to go to war for the greater good of the people. This is instinctive and natural for all species on the planet.

People who think that war is wrong are correct, but those who think that we can live without war are foolish. When I decided to answer this question I was caught in a crossroads of ideas, war is right and at the same time war is very wrong. So far I can not find any middle ground on this subject, When I analyzed both perspectives of this I was confused by the complexity of it.

War is wrong for many reasons, the most important one being death. Hitler had millions killed and waged war for the sole purpose of his own ego, the wars he started where wrong in every way.

The allied countries that defeated him waged a war for the greater good of humanity, people died witch is wrong but they stopped him from taking over Europe and maybe the world. His cause for war was wrong but the allies cause was right.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor they started a chain of events that would change warfare forever. The

bombing of pearl Harbor was wrong but was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wrong or right, killing all those people was wrong but it put an end to the war and saved the lives of who knows how many young men being enlisted into the military on both sides.

From that war we learned a terrible lesson and sometimes it takes a war to teach us that turning a blind eye to a maniac bent on world domination might not be a good idea, or dropping the biggest bomb doesn't always mean that you've won, we might have stopped the war but we lost a lot more than a war, we lost hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives that never took one shot at us and didn't even want the war.

So in conclusion I would like to say that war is wrong in every sense of the word, but war is very much necessary for the growth and preservation of society.