OldWoodSpecter said:

being anti war means sitting home watching TV..
being pro-war means running around in rage killing people..

which one of these two actions is the emotional one? I'll give you a clue, on the battlefield, the heart pumps faster, that's the emotional action.

and as for utopian view? Well if all those who protest thought human society is an utopia they would stay home and not protest.
you are not making sense here. Anti-wark folks are the ones that complain a lot, which means their view of society is the complete oposite of utopia

understanding in war?
Well sure, I understand war. A guy decides that Jews are lesser people, and kills millions of them. If I didn't understand him, I'd almost judge him...

---

Huehuecoyotl said:

You are misinformed about the Norse people (Viking was a term that meant traveler). The Northern Expansion that took place between 793 A.D and 1066 A.D was the result of social upheaval in Scandanavia...not a religious oriented series of attacks, nor a brute display of force. In ancient Norse society farming was the standard means of support. The oldest son inherited the farm so the farm would not be split up. If siblings existed they were often jealous. To placate his brothers, a Norseman would give a sum of money to each brother to use to seek his own fortune. These people would purchase a boat and hire a crew. Then he would put out onto the sea to find his fortune. The reason their raids were so successful was that they had very shallow draft boats that could move up small rivers to attack at unlikely places. Most of the illuminated manuscripts of Europe that survived the Church's book burnings were saved because they had been captured by the Norse who were literate to the last and respected books. All "Vikings" wished to get enough money to become farmers. It is worth noting that the Norse had represenative democracies and gave women full and equal rights. They were an enlightened race taking advantage of turbulent times.

---