Hegel develops the synthesis from the dialectic and so creates a third way, not a straight out winner/loser.

@Geoffrey51 I'm vaguely fam with the argument, but imo it is predicated upon competition, and I might argue that even deeming it a "synthesis" is a pointer to the flawed premise, i.e. you then have something "synthetic" so to speak, a la Pax Romana, Roman "peace," or even such notions as "Federal Reserve" or "Military Intelligence," or even "Keynesian Economics." It is a way to build profit zombies iow

I dislike the word "enemy". Why must we have enemies.?

@Moravian Ideally we would have no enemies. Realistically the human race was forged in conflict— Read history and you’ll read of continual warfare. I view the human condition as neither good nor bad, but just as a part of nature. Things are as they are for reasons IMO.

As an old soldier, my body fought in a war but my true self was peaceful and loving.

@WilliamFleming We certainly have warlike history going back to the days when we lived purely in tribes. Then we fought over land and resources now we still fight over land and resources and have added differing ideologies to that.

Maybe evolution has turned us in to a species that cannot co exist peaceably which is very sad.

I have no enemies but then I have a comfortable safe life so it is easy for me.

@Moravian Manchester and Liverpool, Southampton and Portsmouth, Ireland and Britain. - conflicts have their roots in economy and society. Some of those roots lie in centuries of history. Individuals can resolve differences, but not so simple for socieities.

@Moravian, @WilliamFleming That's a good point William. Conflict is humanity's default position. Particulalrly with ourselves. From the point of self-awareness we have been forged in the fires of warfare, whether global, local or personal. We can only make peace with ourselves. Anything else is a distraction

@Geoffrey51 Unfortunately that has been the case historically but there is no reason why it should be in the future although I saw a senior army officer who's name I cannot remember stating that to be in conflict was the normal situation and it was abnormal to have peaceful periods. What chance do we have with people like that running our "defence ".

@Moravian That officer’s duty is to follow orders and he has no input regarding national policy.

What is needed IMO is for us to elect libertarians. I did my part.

@WilliamFleming I'm not sure about that. The tail may be wagging the dog at times. I cannot even remember the nationality of the general who was talking but his comments were quite chilling. He thinks war is good and we should be at a constant state of war. Maybe he read 1984 and thought is was factual history.

@Moravian There are some very war-like people who promote war because it gives them a purpose. Maybe we can overpower their bad vibes with love and respect.

@Moravian Unfortunately this is, as I understand it, the historic and anthropomorphic condition of social interaction. There are two states; war and preparation for war. I'll see if I can find the academic papers that support that conjecture.