Inyauk Culture

[Ossicone]

I've been slowly going through this list of conculture questions. A lot of the answers are short as I did not originally intend to share it.

Currently the only sections I have finished are #1 & #12.

I. Questions of Place
(a) Describe the geography of where your society calls home.
The Inyauk inhabit the land between the Imsal Mountains (iʔúsanuugimsali) and the Utsim Ocean (isálakuʦimi). They are centered around the Lásaan River (ilúmarlasaani) with their territory expanding almost equally north and south. Their southernmost border is the Dark Forest (ifálumʦulasi), so named because the dense foliage allows very little light to make it to the floor. Dark does not connotate evil to Inyauk.

(b) Describe the climate your society deals with. How severe are their seasons?
The Inyauk Empire is located in a temperate valley between the mountains and the ocean. The have mild seasons with a relatively warm winter, and the summer heat is cooled by air from the mountains.

(c) What kinds of natural disasters has this society gotten used to?
The Inyauk have to deal with powerful thunderstorms and floods. However, their mountains are old and earthquakes are unheard of.

(d) What are the most commonly-grown foods?
The most important crop is corn. Also tomatos, avocados and potatos. They also grow cotton for textiles.

(e) What are the most commonly-eaten meats?
Sheep. They also hunt for deer.

(f) What foods are considered exotic or expensive?
Foreign foods such as bread and beef. Chocolate.

(g) What forms of alcohol are common?
Wine.

(h) Is there usually enough food and water for the population?
Yes.

(i) What is this place's most abundant resource?
Silver and copper.

(j) What is its most valuable resource?
Silver.

(k) What resource is it most lacking?
Iron. Precious stones and gems.

(l) How do people travel from one place to another?
Mostly walking. Some have horses or canoes. (I might add bicycles.)

(m) Are the borders secure? In what way?
Yes. Reputation and patrols.

(n) How many people live here?
10-20 Million.

(o) Where in this place to they congregate?
Each region has it's capital city along with the imperial city.

(p) What part of this place do they avoid? Why?
No part of their territory is avoided. However, they don't like going into the mountains or the Dark Forest.

(q) What are the most common domesticated animals here? And what are they domesticated for?
Sheep. Deliciousness and wool.

(r) What are the most common wild animals?
All kinds of forest animals.

(s) Which animals are likely to be pets? Which ones won't be?
Smaller animals that can be used. Cats.

XII. Questions of suicide
(a) What do people in this culture think about suicide?
Suicide is permitted in certain situations. These situations revolve around making life easier for those around the person. If a person is extremely ill, in severe decline due to old age, and dishonored by their action. Suicide is usually committed by duel. It is in effect allowing oneself to be murdered.

(b) Is it the greatest sin one can commit? Or is it a sin at all?
It is not a sin.

(c)Is it the great and last comfort of a tormented soul?
It is a way of passing without having to face the mental and physical dengredation of extreme old age.
Suicide before this, is usually an attempt at redemption for dishonorable action. If these are what torment them, then yes.

(d) Is it worse than murder?
In many situations, murder is required.

[Khemehekis]

(q) What are the most common domesticated animals here? And what are they domesticated for?
Sheep. Deliciousness and wool.

This is priceless! I'm going to be thinking "deliciousness and wool" to myself all day.

[loftyD]

(q) What are the most common domesticated animals here? And what are they domesticated for?
Sheep. Deliciousness and wool.

This is priceless! I'm going to be thinking "deliciousness and wool" to myself all day.

I too lolled at this. Brilliant :D hehe

[Micamo]

About how big is their homeland? Population density?

Are they seafaring? With those copper pipes I hope not...

Also, no chocolate!? No wonder they're so mean and hateful.

EDIT: As one more question, which conculture test is this?

[Ossicone]

(q) What are the most common domesticated animals here? And what are they domesticated for?
Sheep. Deliciousness and wool.

This is priceless! I'm going to be thinking "deliciousness and wool" to myself all day.

I too lolled at this. Brilliant :D hehe

I think I was hungry when I wrote that. :D

About how big is their homeland? Population density?
Are they seafaring? With those copper pipes I hope not...

I'm working on it. (But they have boats made of wood.)

Also, no chocolate!? No wonder they're so mean and hateful.

Europeans went without chocolate for a long time. And they are only mean if your foreign.

EDIT: As one more question, which conculture test is this?

LINK I found it to be a pretty good way to organize my thoughts.

[Micamo]

LINK I found it to be a pretty good way to organize my thoughts.

Ooh, that's a nice link! Thank you!

[Ossicone]

Here's the next part I've completed. (Yey for days off!) Unfortunately there are no delicious sheep here.

II. Questions of Time
(a) How far back does this society's written history go?
About 800 years.

(b) How far back do its people believe it goes?
About 300 years. They did not have a standard calendar until about 80 years ago, so it is dificult for them to date older documents.

(c) What is the worst disaster they believe they've faced?
In many ways the greatest threat to the Inyauk is themselves. They have a history ravaged by civil wars. After the last war, which left ¼ of the population dead, there was a large sense of disillusionment. It has been 80 years since and the fear of civil war still looms over the Empire.

(d) What was the best thing that every happened to them?
The creation of the academies. It gave those with talent the resources to improve science and propel their society further.

(e) What in their past makes them feel ashamed?
Human sacrifice. Civil war.

(f) What in their past makes them proud?
Complete military dominance of neighboring peoples. Also universal literacy.

(g) What are they afraid of happening again?
Civil war civil war civil war civilwarcivilwarcivilwarrrrrrrr.

(h) What are they hoping will happen? Do they think it likely?
They hope to expand north to the borders of Varretza. Also, they hope for further technological advancement and superiority. It is their manifest destiny.

(i) What do they assume the future will hold?
Increased contact with Varretza (the people to the north). Whether this results in war is uncertain.

(j) How has this society changed? Do its current members realize this?
It has become more unified and less based in local and clan struggles. This was a concious decision of the Inyauk. They are less aware of the fact that classes are beginning to appear as work becomes more specialized.

(k) What are the most popular stories about the past?
The myths about the gods are popular and taught in school. Also taught is the history since the last civil war. This is not as popular or enjoyable, but still consideredimportant by most Inyauk. Old clan stories are usually told in families.

(l) Who in the past is the greatest hero? The worst villain?
They have various heros from their stories, but only one real life hero. She was the one responsible for unifying the regions into an empire. Her name is: Ná-imarumuk Á-imaimuna Xúratituna Úlayaik. Or Úlaya Ná-imarumuk.

For a villan they normal envision a tyrant leader.

(m) Do people think the present better or worse than the past?
Better for sure. Inyauk are living longer, the academies are providing exciting discoveries and knowledge.

(n) Do people believe the future will be better or worse than the present or past?
They are not sure. The Inyauk hope for continued growth but they fear a relapse to their past habits.

[Micamo]

Ná-imarumuk wouldn't happen to have any inspirational connections to Abraham Lincoln, would she?

[Ossicone]

Ná-imarumuk wouldn't happen to have any inspirational connections to Abraham Lincoln, would she?

Not really. Although the sentence sounded quite Lincoln-y when I wrote it.

It was more uniting 5 regions, then just 2. And by uniting, I mean killing the other leaders.

Fun fact: Ná-imarumuk is 'moon blood' her clan name.

[Micamo]

It was more uniting 5 regions, then just 2. And by uniting, I mean killing the other leaders.

What motivation did she have for doing this?

[Ossicone]

It was more uniting 5 regions, then just 2. And by uniting, I mean killing the other leaders.

What motivation did she have for doing this?

Setting up future stability. Ending future clan wars. She did not start the war, she just ended.

[Micamo]

Setting up future stability. Ending future clan wars. She did not start the war, she just ended.

Well they can't kill each other if they're dead... What were the reasons for the clan wars in the first place? I'm willing to bet that by conquering they weren't solved, only suppressed. A dangerous time bomb.

[Ossicone]

Setting up future stability. Ending future clan wars. She did not start the war, she just ended.

Well they can't kill each other if they're dead... What were the reasons for the clan wars in the first place? I'm willing to bet that by conquering they weren't solved, only suppressed. A dangerous time bomb.

Clan wars were fought for the usual reasons - land and honor.
The most important part of Úlaya's unification is that an imperial government was created, and allows for peaceful settlement of inter-regional disputes. They have been at peace for 80 years. Most Inyauk understand that as an empire they are stronger, but they are there are regionalists who want to undermine the imperial government. This struggle, and the fear another civil war, is the main threat to Inyauk society. Many people worry that it is a 'time bomb.' But that is the conflict of their world; that is what makes their story interesting.

[Micamo]

Clan wars were fought for the usual reasons - land and honor.
The most important part of Úlaya's unification is that an imperial government was created, and allows for peaceful settlement of inter-regional disputes. They have been at peace for 80 years. Most Inyauk understand that as an empire they are stronger, but they are there are regionalists who want to undermine the imperial government. This struggle, and the fear another civil war, is the main threat to Inyauk society. Many people worry that it is a 'time bomb.' But that is the conflict of their world; that is what makes their story interesting.

A note to clarify further discussion: *anarchist*. I can't help even critiquing the actions of fictional governments. I tend to get strung up on these things. I don't really have a problem with the existence of them in works of fiction and conworlds though and I include them in mine; They're perfect for causing problems and conflicts!

That said, war is incredibly costly, dangerous, and indeed is incapable of actually accomplishing anything other than making piles of dead bodies and burning cities. Why could conflicts not be peacefully resolved before the imperial government was created?

[Ossicone]

A note to clarify further discussion: *anarchist*. I can't help even critiquing the actions of fictional governments. I tend to get strung up on these things. I don't really have a problem with the existence of them in works of fiction and conworlds though and I include them in mine; They're perfect for causing problems and conflicts!

That said, war is incredibly costly, dangerous, and indeed is incapable of actually accomplishing anything other than making piles of dead bodies and burning cities. Why could conflicts not be peacefully resolved before the imperial government was created?

In the history of humanity, how many disputes have been settle peacefully? And how many have been settled by fighting till no one is able/wants to fight anymore?

Also, who would settle the disputes peacefully? That would require a basic trust to meet and agree to terms. The Inyauk are not very trusting. Now there is a 3rd superior party to mediate disputes. Conflict resolution of requires a common goal. Now that goal is peace, rebuilding and strengthening. That is why the empire has lasted 80 years. Will it last, I don't know yet. They will need another superordinate goal, if not I think they will fall back to their in fighting.

War is very wasteful, that is why they don't want to head down that path again. However when you want something that someone is not willing to give, force is pretty much your only option.* Don't expect people to be logical, if they were the world would be a different place.

Governments are tricky things. I don't know any real government I couldn't criticize, let alone fictional ones. Saying I'm 'fed up' with American politics is an understatement. But that's natural because what is good for one person is not always good for another. And even if it is it doesn't mean they'll think so.

I hope I answered your questions, because I do appreciate them. They help me add depth and create a more realistic system.

*there's always deceit but that doesn't always work either.

[Micamo]

In the history of humanity, how many disputes have been settle peacefully?

Basically all of them. Pretty much the only conflicts that escalate to violence are those between small children, criminal gangs, and governments. (coincidence?)

Also, who would settle the disputes peacefully? That would require a basic trust to meet and agree to terms. The Inyauk are not very trusting.

Think about all the people who react with on a daily basis. When one of you doesn't get what you want, does fighting break out? How does it get resolved? Does either of you really have to trust each other a whole lot for this to work?

And why can't this system work between the clan leaders? (Hint: It has nothing to do with scale. McDonalds and Burger King both hold much more property and resources than any of the clan leaders probably do. Their respective executives aren't trying to kill each other.)

Now there is a 3rd superior party to mediate disputes. Conflict resolution of requires a common goal. Now that goal is peace, rebuilding and strengthening. That is why the empire has lasted 80 years. Will it last, I don't know yet. They will need another superordinate goal, if not I think they will fall back to their in fighting.

If the reason why they had to fight was that they could not trust each other, then how does introducing a third party help? Why should they trust the Imperial Government anyway? Because not trusting them will bring about a retaliation from the "imps?"

Just think about what this implies for a second. The clans aren't fighting each other any more for the sole reason that, if they do, someone with an even bigger stick will smack them down.

It is true that if you try to solve your own conflicts by violence our government will at least attempt to take action against you for it. But is this the only reason you don't? If the police and the military all just disappeared tomorrow would you start killing everyone who won't give you your way?

War is very wasteful, that is why they don't want to head down that path again. However when you want something that someone is not willing to give, force is pretty much your only option.*

Once again, apply this logic to yourself: When you want something you can't have, do you start beating the crap out of people until they give in? What do you do instead? Why won't governments take this option as well?

Don't expect people to be logical, if they were the world would be a different place.

Like I said. Small children, criminal gangs, great nations. All of them are using what they think are the best means available to them to accomplish their goals, so they are being quite logical. It's a fact of life that human beings are in general very bad at judging what the means are that will lead us to our ends. For this reason history is mostly a chronicle of error and frustration.

Many attempts to bring peace by conquering have been tried. All of them failed. It is obvious the Inyauk hold a nationalistic spirit. The imposition of a central authority does nothing to quell this. The best that can possibly come out of it is they direct their energies toward their neighbours. Indeed they already have such ambitions.

Of course from the higher perspective of a conworlder this is just fine: Them building up an empire and then imploding is an interesting enough route to go down, although one done to death (for good reason). But if you want the Inyauk to last then you must get rid of that nasty nationalism of theirs.

I hope I answered your questions, because I do appreciate them. They help me add depth and create a more realistic system.

Why thank you!

[MrKrov]

In the history of humanity, how many disputes have been settle peacefully?

Basically all of them. Pretty much the only conflicts that escalate to violence are those between small children, criminal gangs, and governments. (coincidence?)

No, because it totally ignores everybody else.

Also, who would settle the disputes peacefully? That would require a basic trust to meet and agree to terms. The Inyauk are not very trusting.

Think about all the people who react with on a daily basis. When one of you doesn't get what you want, does fighting break out? How does it get resolved? Does either of you really have to trust each other a whole lot for this to work?

You could try getting some statistics about violent crime. It is fascinating how many people beat, mangle and kill others who get in the way of their bizarre version of happiness. A good anthropologist will tell you how much more so common this was even just a mere few thousand years ago, something like a 1-in-3/1-in-4 odds of being killed by your fellow man.

And why can't this system work between the clan leaders? (Hint: It has nothing to do with scale. McDonalds and Burger King both hold much more property and resources than any of the clan leaders probably do. Their respective executives aren't trying to kill each other.)

Books have been written about this sort of thing. Education is wonderful. Ooooh, and trust issues.

Now there is a 3rd superior party to mediate disputes. Conflict resolution of requires a common goal. Now that goal is peace, rebuilding and strengthening. That is why the empire has lasted 80 years. Will it last, I don't know yet. They will need another superordinate goal, if not I think they will fall back to their in fighting.

If the reason why they had to fight was that they could not trust each other, then how does introducing a third party help? Why should they trust the Imperial Government anyway? Because not trusting them will bring about a retaliation from the "imps?"

Just think about what this implies for a second. The clans aren't fighting each other any more for the sole reason that, if they do, someone with an even bigger stick will smack them down.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to not fight. They don't get the shit beat out of them and Party 3 won't have to deal with warring neighbors.

It is true that if you try to solve your own conflicts by violence our government will at least attempt to take action against you for it. But is this the only reason you don't? If the police and the military all just disappeared tomorrow would you start killing everyone who won't give you your way?

Lots of people already do this, and it would definitely get worse in such a scenario. It would in fact be a great opportunity to start your own military. Lots of unprepared people make for easy pickings and you better believe someone would take the opportunity for easy plundering. If you don't, crack open a (history/psychology/biology/nature) book; it'll be chock full of examples.

War is very wasteful, that is why they don't want to head down that path again. However when you want something that someone is not willing to give, force is pretty much your only option.*

Once again, apply this logic to yourself: When you want something you can't have, do you start beating the crap out of people until they give in? What do you do instead? Why won't governments take this option as well?

One can't simply always all diplomatic and trade-happy. Ever hear about this thing called scarcity? Where something essential or at least very lucrative is needed between two or more parties but there simply isn't enough to go around? Do you A) let the other guy go have it and you go caput or B) beat the shit out of him and you not go caput? Scale doesn't matter here, so there's no point in singling out governments when it's a human tendency.

Don't expect people to be logical, if they were the world would be a different place.

Like I said. Small children, criminal gangs, great nations.Everybody. All of them are using what they think are the best means available to them to accomplish their goals, so they are being quite logical. It's a fact of life that human beings are in general very bad at judging what the means are that will lead us to our ends. For this reason history is mostly a chronicle of error and frustration.

It's like you're so close to figuring out what you're doing wrong. War will be here forever.

[Micamo]

No, because it totally ignores everybody else.

How many conflicts occur that don't end in maiming and killing? It's tempting but unfair to ignore them because they don't make a big show. Two people both pull up to an intersection. Which driver goes first?

You could try getting some statistics about violent crime. It is fascinating how many people beat, mangle and kill others who get in the way of their bizarre version of happiness. A good anthropologist will tell you how much more so common this was even just a mere few thousand years ago, something like a 1-in-3/1-in-4 odds of being killed by your fellow man.

And how many people don't?

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to not fight. They don't get the shit beat out of them and Party 3 won't have to deal with warring neighbors.

My problem is with assuming this is the only deterrent. If the police all just disappeared today would you start killing people?

Lots of people already do this, and it would definitely get worse in such a scenario. It would in fact be a great opportunity to start your own military. Lots of unprepared people make for easy pickings and you better believe someone would take the opportunity for easy plundering. If you don't, crack open a (history/psychology/biology/nature) book; it'll be chock full of examples.

You mean they'd start a Government? Note also I am not advocating an undefended society but a stateless one. They aren't synonyms.

One can't simply always all diplomatic and trade-happy. Ever hear about this thing called scarcity? Where something essential or at least very lucrative is needed between two or more parties but there simply isn't enough to go around? Do you A) let the other guy go have it and you go caput or B) beat the shit out of him and you not go caput? Scale doesn't matter here, so there's no point in singling out governments when it's a human tendency.

When the supply is so small (and production restricted) that not all parties are capable of surviving then the scenario is unavoidable. But let's be serious here: This is not the source of war. When have you seen an entire nation on the brink of starvation invade another to steal their food? And when will this be the best option compared to purchasing or producing it?

It also looks like a good idea to remind you trade is not zero-sum.

It's like you're so close to figuring out what you're doing wrong. War will be here forever.

So will death and disease. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce them as much as possible.

[Ossicone]

Think about all the people who react with on a daily basis. When one of you doesn't get what you want, does fighting break out? How does it get resolved? Does either of you really have to trust each other a whole lot for this to work?

I think you live a much nicer life than most people. I see fights on a fairly regular basis and most of their time their over something stupid. Also having been shot at for no good reason, I'd say you overestimate the the nonviolent nature of people.

And why can't this system work between the clan leaders? (Hint: It has nothing to do with scale. McDonalds and Burger King both hold much more property and resources than any of the clan leaders probably do. Their respective executives aren't trying to kill each other.)

I don't really see the connection here. The Inyauk aren't fighting over anything like trade, and one hasn't taken anything from the other directly. If someone comes and takes your home from you, what would you do?

If the reason why they had to fight was that they could not trust each other, then how does introducing a third party help? Why should they trust the Imperial Government anyway? Because not trusting them will bring about a retaliation from the "imps?"

Just think about what this implies for a second. The clans aren't fighting each other any more for the sole reason that, if they do, someone with an even bigger stick will smack them down.

The reason is two-fold. They imperial government is a neutral third party. It doesn't own or want to own stolen property. It is not a fear of the Imperial government, it is that fact the they don't have any stake in the claim. The second reason is a desire for peace. After the devastation they didn't want it anymore so now they have a common goal. They made a mistake, and don't want to make it again.

Like I said. Small children, criminal gangs, great nations. All of them are using what they think are the best means available to them to accomplish their goals, so they are being quite logical. It's a fact of life that human beings are in general very bad at judging what the means are that will lead us to our ends. For this reason history is mostly a chronicle of error and frustration.

Most violence it not done out of logic; it is done out of emotion. The reasons come later.

Many attempts to bring peace by conquering have been tried. All of them failed. It is obvious the Inyauk hold a nationalistic spirit. The imposition of a central authority does nothing to quell this. The best that can possibly come out of it is they direct their energies toward their neighbours. Indeed they already have such ambitions.

Isn't that all that can be done? Psychologically, if you can't deal with your energies in one way you deal with another. It's called displacement.

Of course from the higher perspective of a conworlder this is just fine: Them building up an empire and then imploding is an interesting enough route to go down, although one done to death (for good reason). But if you want the Inyauk to last then you must get rid of that nasty nationalism of theirs.

I will disagree. There's a reason why people organize into states, they are stronger together than separate. The story is not about building an empire and letting it explode. It how a people change over time, how pressures influence them, and how willing they are to give up their past. I don't think there is a way for you know this from the excerpts I've given, but the government has always been secondary in my mind.

Also, I also don't know if I want them to last. I am not trying to create a 'perfect' society, I'm trying to create one with struggles, and issues like all of the societies of this world. And like all societies this one must end eventually.

Another important note, they Inyauk are technologically equivalent of 18th-19th century Europe.

[MrKrov]

No, because it totally ignores everybody else.

How many conflicts occur that don't end in maiming and killing? It's tempting but unfair to ignore them because they don't make a big show. Two people both pull up to an intersection. Which driver goes first?

Would you like intersection fatalities statistics who in a perfect world wouldn't have bit the dust? According to you, some people don't get into as bad situations as others, ergo no one has any reason to get into a fight? NON SEQUITUR TO THE MAX!!!

You could try getting some statistics about violent crime. It is fascinating how many people beat, mangle and kill others who get in the way of their bizarre version of happiness. A good anthropologist will tell you how much more so common this was even just a mere few thousand years ago, something like a 1-in-3/1-in-4 odds of being killed by your fellow man.

And how many people don't?

According to you, some people don't get killed, ergo no one has any reason to get into a fight? NON SEQUITUR TO THE MAX!!!

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable reason to not fight. They don't get the shit beat out of them and Party 3 won't have to deal with warring neighbors.

My problem is with assuming this is the only deterrent. If the police all just disappeared today would you start killing people?

This is inane. There ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THAT ALREADY. WELCOME TO REALITY.

Lots of people already do this, and it would definitely get worse in such a scenario. It would in fact be a great opportunity to start your own military. Lots of unprepared people make for easy pickings and you better believe someone would take the opportunity for easy plundering. If you don't, crack open a (history/psychology/biology/nature) book; it'll be chock full of examples.

You mean they'd start a Government? Note also I am not advocating an undefended society but a stateless one. They aren't synonyms.

Uh, no, but I await the logic train to your inane beef. Your hypothetical was about whether people'd be more violent without a police or military. (The answer to that is YES.) Whether you advocate that is completely irrelevant and also irrelevant is your "stateless" bananas. It does however raise the suspicious point that you, at least subconsciously, recognize that people are going to be needing protection anyways but from what is a mystery since you think violence can be rationalized away.

One can't simply always all diplomatic and trade-happy. Ever hear about this thing called scarcity? Where something essential or at least very lucrative is needed between two or more parties but there simply isn't enough to go around? Do you A) let the other guy go have it and you go caput or B) beat the shit out of him and you not go caput? Scale doesn't matter here, so there's no point in singling out governments when it's a human tendency.

When the supply is so small (and production restricted) that not all parties are capable of surviving then the scenario is unavoidable. But let's be serious here: This is not the source of war. When have you seen an entire nation on the brink of starvation invade another to steal their food? And when will this be the best option compared to purchasing or producing it?

Uh, who the fuck said scarcity only involved food. I certainly didn't. Maybe you can try other equally possible realworld problems.
Hypothetical¹: I own a country that's the source of a river. This river's long enough that it goes through your country. Over the many years prior your country has grown dependent on this river running through it. I however then decide to damn it up for some electricity or whatever, it dries up in your country, I refuse to undamn even the barest minimum to permit some river and you're out of luck. WUT YOU GONNA DO?

Hypothetical²: Your country is up to its eyeballs in debt, you don't want everything about your way of life to be destroyed when your debt collectors come aknockin', and your neighboring countries are full of pushovers. WUT YOU GONNA DO?

I can find more hypotheticals if needed.

It also looks like a good idea to remind you trade is not zero-sum.

I don't remember saying anything about trade being so, much less any relevance. *HURK* *HURK* OHGODWHATISTRAWCOMINGUPFROMMYTHROATFOR?!

It's like you're so close to figuring out what you're doing wrong. War will be here forever.

So will death and disease. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce them as much as possible.

It would've been nice to address the near grasp of you using as an argument that completely goes against all the rest!
Also, what a nonanswer! I certainly haven't been saying we shouldn't. I'm also not the guy trying to rationalize away the reasons people will and do go to war for!