Who agrees with the statement, War is a continuation of politics by other means?

Answer 1

I do.

Answer 2

That's a quote by Carl von Clausewitz.

I agree. War is a continuation of politics by other means. Those other means are by force. It's the resort of those in power without the means to achieve their political goals through diplomacy, whether because all diplomatic means have been exhausted, a perceived urgency to resolve the issue negates any time required for diplomacy to take its course, or they choose force as a preferred method.


*edit*
A parallel statement would be "Burgulary is wealth/property accumulation by other means". Not exactly to the same degree of severity, but the meaning's the same - if you can't get what you want by being nice, there are always 'other' means.

Answer 3

Absolutely. Politics drives the decision to make war. Sitting around a table and holding hands and singing kumbayah is a grand idea, but it won't work when you've got people like Saddam Hussein, or Bin Laden, etc... building a bomb under the table during the second verse. That is called diplomacy, not politics. The use of force is unfortunate but necessary to protect our interests and allies internationally. By the way LS234e400, NATO did not exist during WWII.

Answer 4

It's so open-ended, I'm not sure how you could agree or disagree.

Many people are blind to reality, that the world is full of hatred and murderous intent. There are many who will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. Many terrorist factions do not abide by codes of conduct (such as the Geneva Convention) in wartime situations, and often bypass any form of diplomacy before commencing an all-out attack.

War is such a broad term. I'm not so sure that any student of history would agree that all wars are political...

Answer 5

War is politics

Answer 6

War is a result of world leaders not having the ability to sit round the table and discuss matters in a civilised manner!

Answer 7

War is a continuation of politics by other means?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Correct statement. Politics is like fire,to be recognised it has to be burning. Once it is off, it is gone for ever.
A politician is the one who lit fires, specially if he has NO talent any other way.

Blank Bush got NO talent of any sort. War is one means of attracting people attention to him and diverting the American nation off his ill admin.practises inside the country.

Bush is advised correctly this time to keep off the way of the Persians and the N.Koreans.

Answer 8

I agree
The one who starts war is usually the one who can-not get their own way ,
like Saddam Hussein in Kuwait he could not get his own way ,
So he invaded Kuwait. STARTED A WAR
So a Coalition Army went and kicked him back out of Kuwait. STARTED ANOTHER WAR
to get him out.
( Now I am not saying AMERICA in the next part as it was not the AMERICAN people who wanted war )
Then GEORGE W BUSH Could not get Saddam Hussein out ( Because years earlier his DAD failed to do it and GEORGE W never forgot this embarrassment to HIS FAMILY )
So started LIES with the W M D stories,
Still Saddam Hussein would not do what GEORGE W wanted him to do,
So GEORGE W BUSH started another war,
After creating numerous lies about W M D
And he could not get his own way with talking.

Answer 9

I'd say politics is war by other means. And thank God.

Answer 10

War is the the last means of diplomacy, yes it is , when diplomacy failed to achieve its objects by peacefull means ,war shall be the answer,

Answer 11

Is the answer not dependant on the definition of politics?