I never said there are no exceptions. Its a very complicated matter. But many people agree, that wars have to be avoided if possible. Because imagine that, if Britain would have decided to stay home instad of ruling over China or India, they would have never lost it in the first place!
What I mean are conflicts like Afghanistan (Soviet conflict), or Vietnam, Korean war, etc. People fighting for independence because of occupation happens usually because they lost a war before. its not like Japan was ruling over China since China was created. China lost many of the battles against Japan and Japan became the super power in Asia believing they wold be the superior race with the birthright to rule over all of Asia, they have been the Nazis of Asia to speak so. And the same is true for many other nations when they start wars and occupy territory because they feel superior.
Its not like I do not see the need of conflicts. Just as how it happens sometimes that you have to defend your self, in your job, at school, or because a drunk guy has this urge to beat you. Then you HAVE to fight. Thats a difference. Because you dont have any options left, you are forced in to it.
But in general people try to teach others to actually stay calm, not trying to get in to fighting and violance, because something like that is always dangerous for both parties. You will rather shout at your coworker then beat him, and you will rather try to reason with him then shout and so on. Strange enough, those principles of "living" together in our life are thrown out of the window as soon you get in to world politics. Because there are a lot of twisted rules at work here. For example one where the strong nations push the weak nations around. The sad part is that what societies have doesnt exist in politics. Laws. They tried to create a lot of regulations, a lot of contracts, all that. But those actually only have an meaning if there is actually an punishment that works. And history has proven that with strong opponents like the UDSSR and the USA those mean nothing. If one side starts nuclear tests again what is the world going to do now? or if the US simply decides to still manufacture mines, despite that they are "outlawed"? Exactly. Laws, only count for the loosers in politics.
Thats the reason why Kissinger gets a price and can retire in the US and someone like Milosovic had to face a trial in Den Hag for war crimes and such. For example the difference between Putin and Saddam is that Putin has the weapons Saddam only talked about. That makes Putin an "politican" and Saddam an crazy maniac that killed innocent people. When Putin is doing that, then its called fighting islamic terrorism in Chechnya. If Saddam had really nuclear weapons for example they would have said that Saddam was not killing inocent Civilians, he was hunting down kurdish terrorists. Just as how it is right now with China and the Uyghur people, where they paint someone like Rebiya Kadeer and her family as "terrorists". But do you see the US or Europe jump on China for that? Sure not. Becaues our nobel "rulers" damn well know, that a war with China might earn them a blody nose. And you dont attack someone that can fight back with nuclear weapons.
But see, in society, the government and the police, in the ideal case, put everyone on "even" ground. Of course money, power etc. is changing many things here as well, but for the "common" man it at least creates this feeling that we all are "equal" in the eyes of justice.
Many of the wars we have seen in history though could have been avoided. Wars where the situation was not clear for either side, like the Korean war. Or when foreign forces "occupy" territory in the name of "liberation" and "freedom". This was used many times by many different forces to justify their actions. Including the USA - See Vietnam for that matter.
People defending their homes and own nation have an clear advantage as far as the morale and the location goes. But those situations are many times the REACTION to violance or because someone lost a war here already.
