# data[].attributes.body
I just wanted to go to art school

# data[].attributes.body
war is where people who arent old enough to vote, are sent to bear fully automatic weapons to lay their lives for their country.

# data[].attributes.body
War? Uh DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

# data[].attributes.body
War? UHHHH
*sleeps*

# data[].attributes.body
Look what I found!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This vein of nationalistic militarism, handed down to children, didn't impress everyone. H G Wells, author of The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, knew more than most about the risks of military technology. "History is a race between education and catastrophe," he famously warned. One of his own gestures on the side of education was Little Wars, in 1913, an exhaustive set of rules for playing with toy soldiers. Or "a game for boys from 12 years of age to 150 and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books", to give his own long-winded title. Wells, who reportedly came up with the idea after dinner with fellow novelist Jerome K Jerome, hoped that by providing a forum for children to play at war, he would discourage the real thing.

The next four years proved him horribly wrong, and millions of men headed to a battlefront that was nothing like the scenarios they had played out on the carpet. "For many of the young soldiers going to the Western Front, the space between playing with toy soldiers and fighting for real would have been relatively short," says Hopkins. The First World War led to a slump in popularity for war games in Britain, he explains, but not everywhere. "You might think that a country's experience of war would affect how they saw these toys, but there is something more complex going on. Perhaps it's because the Germans were a more militaristic nation, or possibly they didn't make the same connection between what happened in the trenches and how children were playing." As if to prove the point, the exhibition features German models of the wounded, and of soldiers performing mundane tasks such as exercise: the public valued a realistic depiction as much as a heroic one.

The Second World War was so disruptive that even the manufacturers couldn't escape. Some were forced to shut down to make munitions. Others were affected in more insidious ways. A die-cast car called the Führer's Limousine was popular in Germany during the late Thirties. It was originally made by Tripp & Co, a toymaker founded by Phillipp Ullmann and Arthur Katz, two Jews from Nuremberg. After Hitler's rise to power, they fled to Northampton, where they began a new company, Mettoy, which went on to produce Corgi cars, one of Britain's most famous toy brands.

Other exhibits are heartbreaking: a set of playing cards made in the Buchenwald concentration camp, and a doll kept in a Liverpool air-raid shelter: two toys designed to help people escape the reality of conflict, rather than experience a version of it. Elsewhere, a set of toy tanks made from cardboard by a boy who was killed during the bombing of Nuremberg. Allied children were not the only ones to have their play disrupted.

Since 1945, the attitude to war games in the West has developed along contradictory and worrying lines. On the one hand, we are more sensitive than ever to old-fashioned fighting games. Children are increasingly taught not to play with guns, and some are banned from toy weapons (these are often the keenest to explore a friend's arsenal).

As Hopkins suggests, this has dangerous implications: "I think a lot of playing at war is trying to make sense of the big world," he says. "Toys that let children play with their imagination can be creative and helpful. The problem is that video games dictate the limits of the reality children can play in, rather than inviting them to create their own." A child given a wooden gun could turn it into whatever they wanted, while an on-screen machine gun can only have one purpose.

Soldiers and pilots have used simulations for years, and the games manufacturers have kept pace. Many new games are already indistinguishable from the screens of helicopter gunships and drone fighters shown on the news. In the British and US armed forces, there are serious debates about whether experienced gamers - some of them only teenagers - are more useful than trained pilots with combat experience. After all, the main requirements: keen eyesight, quick reflexes and high levels of concentration, are the same for games and real warfare.

Last year the US Air Force was reported to be developing a drone simulator for children, specifically to attract recruits, and nearly all such games are developed with input from military or ex-military consultants. Some of the more violent examples come with certificates to stop children playing them, but in years of exposure, I have yet to see one that seeks to make modern war appear uncool.

However callous the generals in their war rooms, those doing the actual killing have always been aware of the distinction between the make-believe and the bloody reality. A Western child born today, however, could grow up playing increasingly realistic games, and then simply switch chairs when they are old enough to enlist. Dropping a virtual bomb would be indistinguishable from dropping a real one. Both could be done remotely, without leaving the chair in front of the screen.

As graphics and processors improve, moreover, an even scarier prospect emerges: the game that is more realistic than reality. With no risk of death, young men and women flying unmanned drones or stealth bombers will find real war dull and vague, thanks to the army's slow bandwidth and grainy screens. They will itch to get back to the high-definition mayhem at home. The fear is that, as we make war safer for our own young men and women, we lose sight of what's going on at the other end of the video connection.

'War Games' is at the V&A Museum of Childhood, London E2 (020 8983 5200) from May 25 to March 9 2014

Follow Telegraph Art on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This vein of nationalistic militarism, handed down to children, didn't impress everyone. H G Wells, author of The War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, knew more than most about the risks of military technology. "History is a race between education and catastrophe," he famously warned.

# data[].attributes.body
War is nothing but a means to an end. To ensure the universe is under the complete control of the Dark Side war is nothing but a method the Emperor is using in order to exact swift and merciless dominance. While the Rebel Alliance has proved a formidable enemy they are no match for the power of the Dark Side in this Galactic War lasting for nothing more a few years at a maximum. How do I know this? Considering the equation of war is W = 2x - 7y where W is length of war, x is the power of the Dark Side and the y is the strength of the rebel alliance; using dW/dy the maximum length of the war can be determined after drawing a composite function graph. As Fallout has said throughout the year; "War, war never changes."

# data[].attributes.body
honestly if franz ferdinand didn't pull off a jfk leaving his home  he would've lived and The Great War probably wouldn't have happened

# data[].attributes.body
it can raise aWAReness

# data[].attributes.body
War; a social construct created by man in the early 15th century. Back in the times of the ancient Pharoah Hapshetsut, he once discussed the true meaning of war, that is; making money. One must only reference the critically acclaimed storyline Civil War by Marvel Comics in the year 2005-2006 to ensure the meaning of war through the gaining of resources is the true meaning of war and why it is important to this society. Overall, it can be deduced that war is nothing but a social construct in order to gain funds. In the words of the famous poet William Shakespeare in the play The Merchant of Venice's main character Antonio "I am dumb!" and so is war. Amen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Edwin Starr - War (What Is It Good For?)

# data[].attributes.body
My opinion on war

War is a tempter that lured men and woman from their families and snatched their souls.

War is a murderer, who murdered thousands of innocent lives caught in-between

War is a thief, that stole basic needs from human and leave them poor

War is a beast, that vexed homes and buildings into ashes

# data[].attributes.body
War is a very bad solution to whatever problem (the government of) whatever country has with (the government of) another country. Yet, apparently humanity is not very smart.
In conclusion, war is bad and usually causes more problems rather than solves them.
Goodnight.

# data[].attributes.body
in my opinion it brings many negative outcomes to the country and most importantly families. because of problems political parties have, the residents of the country has to face the consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT WAR UH

In conclusion war is bad. Yeah.

War is physical violence. War is emotional scars. War is the cause of poverty. War is humanity's worst nightmare. War is  inevitably human.

War, it all starts with a little misunderstandings here and there, drags on and accumulates into a bloody battlefield. Innocent bystanders are pained to watch, to hide, to fear. War holds no limits, it has no boundaries. And that is scary.

# data[].attributes.body
a blood bath between several parties the end

# data[].attributes.body
WHAT I THINK ABOUT OF WAR

What is war? Is it just a concept made by the human mind or does it have any truth to it? War was not brought to humankind by God, but it is a term created by us, humans. Some would ask, why do you need war when you can live a peaceful life without commotion? Honestly, it is basic human nature. In my opinion, the concept of life has ups and downs. We'd probably be robots if everything is the same. Life should'nt be constant, for it serves no purpose to life. Any problems that we face gives a meaning to our life, a force that drives us to achieve something better. So, what happens when there is no war? People from all across the world will not be joining hands to prevent it. A lot of people are working hard to help those affected by bombings and such. However, that doesn't mean I'm supporting the idea of war or that it shouldn't be stopped. What war is, that it is a part of our life and a part of a life cycle. We have to accept that war is real and ongoing.
As people with humanitary values and compassion, we should do what we can to help to prevent worse wars before the occur. However, war cannot be stopped completely to its roots; like a dead man being buried. He is gone, never to return, never to get up and walk again or talk but war isn't like that. War is a part of life. Even in the dinosaurs era, war happened between clans of different types of species. In our modern era, war is just something that has evolved like technology. Don't get me wrong, it's just my opinion on the concept of war. It's just a factor in our lives.
However, it is a negative factor.
~ To be continued

# data[].attributes.body
To any normal human, like me, war could seem like something that brings everything negative as it wages. Death, sickness and destruction are things so synonymous with war. However, the way I see it, though there may be dire consequences, inevitable in those dark times, war could be a cleansing ritual, where everyone, with no regards or favoritism to social elites and those who live in shadows of abandonment, can finally experience hardship together. For once, the scales of life are balanced and for once, intrinsic values are being looked upon than ones extrinsic.

However, as war brings more negative than positive, war ruins relationships between everyone, from strangers to families and even among countries, globally. Looking at how Hitler brought ruination to the world through World War 2, many people have since then viewed Germans differently. Looking at the many video clips, showing enemy soldiers hiding in trenches, instead I saw warriors, terrified and humiliated, away from their friends and families, about to be brutally slaughtered. Them being the enemy makes no difference, since they are human all the same.

War can be prevented by minding our own businesses and establishing good relationships with people. People should cultivate good manners to practice especially on strangers, since a good impression lasts a lifetime.

# data[].attributes.body
First of all, war is defined as a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. My personal opinions on war can be summed up by the attached video:

# data[].attributes.body
I believe war is unavoidable.
War is an insurmountable travesty that brings more pain than remedy to all those involved in it, whether it be willingly or unwillingly.

# data[].attributes.headline
War between countries only bring more disadvantages to the nation. When countries are attacked, they will lose lives, source of economy and also source of livelihood. 

# data[].attributes.subject
War between countries only bring more disadvantages to the nation. When countries are attacked, they will lose lives, source of economy and also source of livelihood. 

# data[].attributes.body
Ms Jade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rusted Root - Send Me On My Way (Official Music Video)

# data[].attributes.body
War has been around since the beginning of humanity. According to Merriam-Webster, war is defined as a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

War has its positives and negatives, although it is mostly negatives, rather than positives. Some of it's positives are that they can instill a patriotic spirit within the soldiers involved in the war. It's negatives, however, greatly outweigh the positives. For example, the innumerable loss of life, the loss of resources, and usually loss of happiness, all heavily out shadow any negatives.
---------------------------------------------
Here's Dwight Eisenhower's timeless speech.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: