Took some time off for myself...<---lie. I surfed the web for information...er, opinions (for that's all it is) about the war-turned-conflict/struggle-argument (*tight lipped grin). I wanted to search independent news for information, blogs, anything. But as I had told him, I was going about it the wrong way to begin with. Still, just the pull of the internet was irresistable, I couldn't stop sifting through countless useless information. You know, I could start from the beginning -the definition of war. Then I could research historical (political) interpretations of war, compare that with the regular definition and then the implications...and then write a thesis because that's exactly how it should all end. *sigh* How useless indeed. I'm not about to waste time writing about it when I can do something about it. Not a thrill seeker in the least, nor do I have grandiose plans to change the world --you know, world peace or some such bs like that. I just wanted to...well, prove human nature --its goodness or badness such that it is. *Pretty flimsy, I'll work on my reasonings as I go along. Perhaps it's not just my boredom that's the root cause of my own war.

A thought occurred to me: if you don't call it a war, could it be "lost"? (How do you lose something not "winnable" and what are the requirements to "win" a war? On the flip side, and I suppose, really the issue is what is considered "winning"?) Wars have changed so much over the centuries and if someone has more firepower and money, and they can afford to leave an occupied land (hypothetically speaking, of course), then they (would, could) may think that any smaller country trying to fight them would be "unfair" and so wouldn't want to call it a war -after all, it would look as though they (the bigger countries) were being bullies that uses physical means to win. Granted, they are still bullies, but more "civilized" bullies. Hell, I'll research the "rules" of war. There seems to be this BS gentleman's rules to fighting a war (as though there need be rules for that). War has a beginning and an "ending"...or is supposed to (*the ending is where we get into trouble). Sometimes it's more a continuation...if that's the case, how can its previousness be "won"? It can't, right?And that's why we've had the 300 years war and...and Global War II...what was that about? Sometimes I feel like what's the point in giving it a name -it's all the same. ...But to give it a classification makes it easier to see who to blame and to make things more black and white (winning vs. losing)...it really belittles the complexity of our interrelationships. But I don't wish to go down this route, so to bring back some THEME then towards a direction so that I can finally feel like my research isn't for naught.   

To start, the definition of war is this (*to reference specifically, these definitions came from dictionary.com paraphrased): As a noun it means a conflict [my italics] carried on by force of arms, as between nations...by land, sea, or air. 2. [A] state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. This (and the third definition which I won't include) doesn't appear to apply to our situation because the North has no military. However, definition 2 applies to our side, unless the North has an army that I simply don't know about. "Armed" wise would be their police force and it makes no sense to use that and leave their people law-enforced-less. Oh, and I italicize "conflict" simply because it's used within the definition.

As a verb: [T]o make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation. This definition could possibly become imminent because they have stronger relations with their (as well as our) allies than we do. It would be suicide to "war" with the North overtly and physically, so to call it a conflict and negotiate (publicly and/or privately) is "better" on our part...I suppose...as long as the situation doesn't get out of hand. I do have a problem, however with using the word itself within the definition. Perhaps more proof that words have meaning, not that we should give meaning to words -but another argument for another day.

And here is the definition of "conflict" because a comparison needs to be made (also found on dictionary.com, paraphrased): As a verb, used without object -to come into disagreement; be...in opposition; clash. On a side note, I love the word clash -it sounds like swords (or pots and pans) clanging together in discordant harmony. But on to definition two:

As a noun: fight, battle or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife. Squabbles are normal between siblings, and we've had our fair share...just nothing really prolonged. But as things are now, I wouldn't be surprised if our conflict (which should die down on its own normally) will never become resolved. (*BECAUSE) If we don't know what we're fighting for (or we're fighting for the wrong reason/s) we'll continue to fight because it's embarrassing to admit (defeat) being wrong -it's just natural for someone powerful to continue trying to prove their own self-worth. Yet, if they get a big enough beating, they'll back down. But by then our country will be worse off than it necessarily should be -keeping up pretenses is costly, after all.

Morale is VERY important. Sometimes I believe that morale is more important than money and supplies. Money and supplies seem to be more important to the more "Developed" nations and the winners than the less developed. If they (the less developed) have the will they will sacrifice and get resources (or be resourceful) when they can in order to defeat the winning side, ESPECIALLY fighting on their own turf. Even if they do lose, their people will remember and may continue the fight long after the "war" is declared over whether it be because of grudges, pride or whatever. But I digress...

The last definition I want to include is this: ...[A] conflict of ideas. Other than out of jealousy, aren't most sources of struggles from a conflict of ideas? I think I like my version of conflict and war best --pretty simplified but: A conflict is when two dissenting parties can't come to terms and begin a war which involves punching someone in the face. It's not really a war without other parties involved. Wars then are more complicated because of those extra involvements --now you must not only win against your opponent but win the hearts and minds of men (war is VERY emotional -and men who say that the male species is more rational are kidding lying to themselves). But you know, if we became more comfortable with being wrong, we wouldn't try to prove who was "right". More dead doesn't equal more right. Not that I have any personal experience with my definition I've given. ...I bet you don't believe me. Well, I have you know, prior to my adult years I had no fighting experience. I regret that since I think it's natural to fight, but we evolve "fighting" and the conditions of winning so much so that...well, I don't know where I'm going with that...

Is it really different controlling (governing, same difference) people? How can you hope to lead someone else when you can't even control yourself? What about governing or leading by example? We're too caught up in ideals (religious or not) to focus on being leaders. Show people your vision, not just filibuster an opponent. It's to the point of slandering a person, distracting the public from the real issue at hand. Of course mistakes will be made, and you can't make everyone happy. THAT'S not the point of any governmental system. The point is to create an atmosphere of civility, where differences can be aired but one view not be more right than others. Yet when it becomes too aggravating to even look at the other butt-hole (putting it nicely, again, not talking from real experience or anything...), not to put into place who's right, but how much are either willing to compromise (if they can), if not, what other solutions can there be to prevent them from killing each other. All ideals and none serving any real purpose in this world, I digress as usual. 

This letter seems to be more a beginnings of a thesis or even a sermon, so I'll stop for now. Perhaps I will write one after this is all over. I mean if I survive the war (I'll even make a t-shirt that says: Look mommy, I survived the war! Now I'm fighting the next one)...I mean there will always be war, it IS a balance, not a moral dilemma as it's been branded. You'll have to suffer the research for a few more letters, but I promise I won't bore you with more details today. I must go eat anyway. I'm meeting my childhood friend whom I will now and forever refer to as the Advocate (even though he's now a somewhat private investigator).

RATE THIS CHAPTER!

Author guidance for This story

The numbers denote numerical order, not the days/date for which things happen =sometimes a few days pass between letters. Whenever the main character backtracks it will be stated so no worries ^o^
This is fictional so if there are some situations that can correlate (it's because it can!) But it's really not that situation...really... ^o^;
Also, there are some characters here and there that will only get titles such as:

The Spy: First introduced as a nuiscance, he becomes important in introducing a branch (the Ama) of a bigger group. He's a constant character in the story.

The Advocate: A childhood friend who was once a lawyer but is now a "somewhat" private investigator because he's also searching for the Truth sans all the research that the main character enjoys doing. They complement each other, but alas -not a love interest, so there.

The Instructor: Seems to help Ama but isn't really part of that branch...is another constant in the story to help the main character with actions (actually moving the plot forward).

(more to come...)

updated 18 hrs ago by Naoshi_Armitage