Most of us were taught when we were children that war was evil in this world. Especially in China, where education loves to inject a solid type of answer of a question to children's brains, we have been educated to be against all kinds of war. Chinese culture is hypocritical some people say, which is likely to avoid mentioning conflicts with many excuses of morality. But it is a common argument point in society, especially among writers and entertainment, who are just professional in their artistic area but ignorant to the laws of politic world. Everybody loves peace including myself. Except the ones like Adolf Hitler, who wants to drag the world into chaos? However, it is impracticable to ban all kinds of war just based on morality.

I want to clarify that people should abandon the preconception of war. War itself is a type of method to solve problems between countries. When the confliction between these two countries fails to reach an agreement and the confliction is being strengthened to a horrible extent, war becomes the best way to solve problems. We can't assert that war is comdemned to be an evilness between interest groups. Maybe writers, actors and singers love to say so, but the principle of politics has never been changed by them who love to stand on the moral high ground deceptively. Because many times, their "moral" access is useless, or even harmful.

The wars and battles came to people's sight within the past 20 years have proved that pure anti-war is rather hypocritical. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and USA led UN gave Iraq a heavy attack. But later cultural and pure anti-war persons criticized USA and UN to fight with Iraq, a little mid-east country. In 2003, with the name of human rights, Bush decided to fight with Saddam again. And those hypocritical persons were against USA and UN again. The argument from them were: USA and other alliance countries were powers but Iraq was a weak nation. It seems that those cultural persons were the represents of morality. Nevertheless, they had never had interest observing the reality of the wars. First of all, to pay off the fees in Iraq-Iran war, Saddam occupied Kuwait first. And the dictator tortured his citizens a lot when he was at power. Such kind of person was unworthy to be talked with. Some people may claim that the war made the people in Iraq suffer a lot. But if the world had allowed Saddam to torture people, Iraq citizens would be more painful. And the liberation of people was sure to come one day and the violence was impossible to avoid. For the violent govern of Saddam, conversation was just a dream.

And most wars in human's history were based on the principle: If the govenment of a country was harsh to its people, or it surged a war illegal to other nations, additionally the governors of the country were tough and refused to talk with other countries, the government should be interfered by military method. I think a normal man can't consider that USSR, USA, UK, France and China should have just talked with Germany, Italy and Japan "peacefully" so as to stop their invasion. Chinese ancient militarists believed that the usage of war was to stop evilness, rather than pure battles between interest groups. The peace of the world today is not on the basiso of conversations, but on the basis of the victory of WW2. We can imagine that if the powers of the world in 1940 had been just having peaceful conversation with Fascist just like those cultural persons advocate, the three Fascist countries would eat up the whole world and then all people would suffer more than the war against Fascist from 1939~1945.

I suggest, especially to those writers, singers and actors, to be realistic and don't use impracticable consideration to stand on the moral high ground. We should respect the method to solve a problem. And in politic world, the consideration ought to be long-range and obey the demand of the most portion of the society. Perhaps being impracticable is the substantial morality rather than just use "morality" to criticize.