From spears to missiles, wars have evolved from sharp and deadly stones to bombs that could

diminish a civilization, but after all these centuries, the cause is just as it is thousands of years ago, it’s still all

about conquering and defending what they want and what they have.

The first war ever recorded in history took place in Mesopotamia in 2700 BCE between Sumer and

Elam. During that time, the only thing civilization like them would most want is to expand. Considering the

population they have and the land they already have, it is clear that even before, greed has always been

through humanity.

You may deny it as much as you want but greed is just one part of the dark side of human nature, we

wouldn’t admit it, of course, but we would very much like to be in the spotlight. The one in charge, the one in

power. Greediness, selfishness, ego, non-contentment, insecurities, ambition; these are parts of us that makes

us human. Think about it, without all these, would the world war 1 ever happen? Would the world war 2 even

exist? Or would even the word “war” exist? It’s so hard to see or envision the world without all these things

because by that, it’s like imagining a world without humans. And imagining a world without humans, there

would be so much peace and harmony that it’ll be deafening.

I once read a quote from tumblr (a social networking site), it says: When the power of love is greater

than the love of power, the world will know peace. The post is too beautiful that I have to put it here no

matter how idealistic it sounds. Then you might ask, Idealistic in what way? Let’s not forget that love is the

oversimplified version of trust, commitment, selflessness, humility and contentment. Love counteracts

everything dark about humanity, it’s one too beautiful thing to think about but it doesn’t matter if love could

be the real solution for these wars because even in fairytales, none of those would ever happen.

When the First World War happened, the context of war isn’t at all new to humanity. We all already

know the cycle of engaging to a battle where some of us might die and hoping and may be even praying that

more of your enemy’s dies. The world war was extremely bloody, drowning Europe for five years with
screams of terror, detonating bombs, gunshots and dead bodies. The real objective of the world war 1 is to

be the war that end all wars, as how America proclaimed it. Then if ending a war means engaging into a war,

they might have as well used another word rather than making it sounds ridiculously ironic. It’s like saying that

you could only put down a fire by adding some more fire and help it spread a little more.

The second world war was said to start with either of the two: when Germany invaded Poland and

when Japan invaded China, whether of the two, it is clear that the war started in a conquer-defend process

too. Just like all the wars even before civilizations. Just like world war 1, world war 2 incased so many deaths

and destruction, even worse. It was merciless and revengeful. Unlike the first world war which at least had a

purposeful objective (although wasn’t attained), the world war 2 was just about avenge, revenge and killing.

World War 2 was a nightmare we could only pray to not to happen again. It’s an evidence of how much

humanity’s dark side could go. An evidence of how humans destroy one another.

In both wars, we should have and must have learned three things: First is that the struggle for power

is very real. How people would kill and drag their own kind to the ground just to be on top or bring a city or

an island down just to prove their point. The second thing is that there might be no other way to end a war

but to start another war. That the only thing that could counteract death is more death and the only thing that

could neutralize violence is to give out more guns. And the third and the most important thing that we should

have learned: In the reality of war; no one actually wins. It’s neither a game nor a competition, it’s about

survival; someone would definitely die, someone would definitely mourn and someone would definitely kill.

While the liberalist would believe that these wars are just challenges to the interconnection or

interaction of all nations, that it’s the time’s form of strengthening their relationships. Then I have one

question: do all the bloods that flowed out due to all the wars necessary in strengthening international

relations?

The wars in the 21st century are no different to these previous wars. They still all revolve around

conquering and defending.