Don't let the title mislead you. I don't hope for a war. Yes, usually when people talk about a future war, it is because they anticipate it. And because they anticipate war, it means they are just waiting for it, and are not doing anything to prevent it. This makes them war hawks. It means they want the war to come, because they see no other way, and are not willing to accept an alternative. War hawks don't make compromises; they don't try to make peace. War hawks make war.

You can call me a war hawk, but you can't say I want war. I know more than most people, in that I know what is worth fighting for. War is a stupid thing. Many people die in war. And in most wars they die for nothing. But some wars are different. Sometimes there is a reason to fight. Sometimes there is a Reason for war. In this type of war, yes, people do die. But they die for a Reason.

This is a cheap consolation. To say that your loved ones are dead, but there was a Reason for their deaths--they have died for a Reason. No matter what happens, war is disgusting. It is brutal and cold. And in the end, there is no reason for war, just as there is no reason for evil. But there is a reason to kill and defeat evil. Evil is the cause of war. Needless death is what gives rise to war. And wars are fought to blot out the evil. The expectation of war, is that justice will be served.

But war is not justice. Innocent people die in war. War is anarchy. It is the opposite of law and order. War happens because people don't follow the Laws, or because they argue about what the laws are. War is the result of disputes. It erupts when people argue about what is "Right." As far as I'm concerned, there is only One Right, as there is only One G-d. If everyone followed G-d's Laws, there would be no disputes, and there would be no wars. But people fight, even over G-d. They fight about G-d's "Laws." In other words, they fight to be gods, and they fight to replace G-d. People fight because they're not sure what is Right. They fight because they've separated themselves from G-d. And even those who follow G-d's Laws and walk with G-d, are forced to fight wars because others got lost.

How can there be two Rights? One person might follow G-d, while the other will follow gods. And when the other says my gods are "G-d" and my laws are "Laws," then he's saying to the first person, "you're wrong." If this person thinks he's right, then he can't tolerate the first person's Laws, because, how can both people be Right? And when the first person's Laws contradict with those of the other person (or visa versa), then both people will be faced with a dilemma, for how can Justice be served if both people have a different idea of what Justice is? And if both people care about Justice and want justice to be served, then they'll have a big dispute. At that point it doesn't matter who's Right anymore, because there's going to be a war.

The only way to prevent war, is to compromise, thus settling the dispute by other means. But if a person knows he's Right, or thinks he's right, then why would he compromise? A compromise only happens when both people say they're wrong and accept a solution, or when one side gives in and accepts the other side's idea of justice. If a person is weak and is afraid he might lose, then perhaps he'll compromise even though he knows he's Right. So people that are Right, or think they're right, can avoid a war by saying they're wrong. But by doing this, their idea of Right loses its validity. And further, these people are compromising themselves, because they place themselves at the mercy of another person's idea of justice. And they can never know if they'll be tolerated, unless they assimilate and become different people. But this is hard to do, because Right is Right and a Law is the Law. So they'll be faced with injustice for the rest of their days, or until they're willing to fight for their Rights. And in the case of a mutual compromise, both people accept that they're wrong and place their fate in the hands of the arbitrator, or the terms of the mutual agreement.

In the aftermath of a war or as a consequence of peaceful diplomatic disputes, there are treaties, or mutual agreements. These agreements are signed to put an end to war and/or to prevent war. The winner of a war might choose to be lenient towards the defeated, or he might decide to try to wipe them out completely, either literally or through the guise of assimilation (which is the motto of "convert or die"). And the incentive for doing these things is to prevent another war. Look, after the winner has been victorious, why would he want to risk defeat and cause another war? War is death, and not even the evil like war. The evil like to kill and ruin the world, but even though they are killing themselves by doing these evil things, they don't like to die. So it doesn't matter who wins. But whoever does win is the "Law," and if he is to stay in power, his laws must be defended.

The point of a treaty is to defend these laws, by setting them down on paper in an agreeable way. How these laws have been agreed upon is an issue of war and/or compromise, but the treaty itself is another issue. If the victor kills the defeated then there's no reason to sign a treaty, but if he forces them to convert (which is to assimilate) then the treaty sets down the manner in which this assimilation will take place. If the victor chooses to be lenient and tolerates some aspects of the loser's laws, customs, and ideas, then the treaty establishes what is tolerated and what is not. Anything can be written in a treaty, but there is a limit to how absurd the demands of a treaty can be. Since the whole intention of a treaty is to prevent war and establish law and order, a treaty that doesn't fulfill this role defeats its purpose.

There have been many foolish leaders that were the victors of war, but then became the victims of its consequences. These people won, but then they made crazy demands of the conquered, and eventually fell at the hands of rebels (that were once conquered and subdued peoples). Of course, the winner is the one who has a stronger back and a greater will. So even though people might have been conquered, they can always become conquerors. It's not for nothing that it is said, "If there is a will there is a way." Even if the treaty was agreed upon without a war, senseless treaties are worthless and will not prevent war. And making compromises for no reason (or when people think there is no reason), will only be a reason for war, thus fueling the flames of violence and anarchy.