I agree with you in full. War should be only used in defending one's self.
Even if you are at war and fighting on another countries soil, in an offencive position, I have trouble deciding if even that is right or not.

But do you really have to completely annialate the enemy? You shouldn't utterly destroy them, but give them a good-enough bashing on your own soil that tells them not to come back.

Not always.
Lets say your village goes to another village and attacks them. You catch them by surprise and weaken their defences. The next day, you attack them again, but this time they're ready. You underestimate them, they catch you off guard, and serverely hurt your forces on their turf.
Now, with a chunk of your military gone, and that village waiting for you, do you attack again? It really depends, but in closing, doing a significant amount of damage in self defence will do good enough.
Even if you choose to invade again, be ready, and keep defending the homefront, and eventually, they will stop attacking.

[I'm assuming this is where your talking about] Actually, right after that part where you suffer significant ammount of loss of troops, you fall back, and either the nexk day, or just an Hour after you guys arrive back in your village, they can counter strike and Kill all of your men.

But what is the point? What is the foreign village gaining from that? Complete and total xenocide?

No it is Retaliating for the loss of their men when your village first attacked.

Exactly. Do you have to get revenge? Its doing nothing. I believe that we can just stop it there, instead of throwing away more lives just for something as stupid as the fulfillment of revenge.

I mean, war is pointless, really. It's basically "I kill your people, knowing that you will kill mine." I think that even though they go to war to PREVENT death, more death happens as a RESULT of war than would have had you let eachother to his own devices.

Sometimes war is useless though, but part of something we'll always do unless our thoughts of retaliation are changed in the future. From what I've heard, we had a mass invasion planned for Japan in WWII if the two atomic bombs were to fail, but why nuke them first instead of unleashing our top man power over there? Either way, people will die, but less Japanese citizens would of probably been killed if we didn't drop the atomic bombs first, yet the American army would've probably took a major beating in their population

From what I've heard, if the U.S. had invaded, it could have cost the lives of tens of thousands more American troops and up to a million Japanese. The use of the atomic bomb was pretty much necessary. They wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, and they did.

Though I think we should have detonated one in Tokyo Harbor as a warning first, rather than targeting civilians. That probably would have been enough to get them to surrender.

And I'll reiterate my point, just because I feel like it: I think that often, war is unnecessary (Spanish-American War) but other times it's inevitable (World War II).

Actually, I thought that they should've chosen Tokyo or something along those line as well, but then we did this unit in World History at school on the bomb. For a while that was supposed to have been the primary target, but then they realized that if they did bomb Tokyo, that would have incited such an angry backlash from the Japanese that the war would've gone on for longer. So they changed it, obviously, to a city of somewhat lesser importance, but would still have a great impact.

As for me, I think war isn't a necessary part of society. All it seems like is a bunch of ridiculous ritual killing. Plus, it interferes with my belief that human life itself is more valuable than any cause, idealogy, religion, nationality, or anything else imaginable. I will not nor will I ever commit violence for my country or anyone else's, 'cos that's all fascist thought right there.

But what if your country or one of its allies is attacked by an aggressor? Don't you think you would have a responsibility to protect innocent victims? It was this attitude that kept the UN out of Rwanda, despite the genocide that was going on there.