Don't give me that usual it kills people, ruin lifes junk. I already know! But sometimes nations (not usa) need to go to war.
In that case is it wrong?
2006-07-13 06:41:34 · 15 answers · asked by Perilous Rose 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
No, it is not, since war often needs to happen to stop dictators and genocides (remember WWII). However, most agree that need must be defined by a) getting attacked by another nation or b) getting approval from the UN Security Council. Otherwise, in examples such as the war in Iraq, when neither objective was met, the war violates international law.
2006-07-13 06:46:00 · answer #1 · answered by democratsforgore 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the following is the conundrum; conflict is incorrect. to apply your celebration, Germany and Japan were incorrect to start up a conflict adversarial to their pals. They attacked without provocation and enslaved and murdered thousands and thousands. replaced into it incorrect for america and the U.ok. et al to get entangled in the conflict? If conflict being incorrect is an absolute then it replaced into. the issue is that there are not any absolutes in actual life. There should be no opt to have armed people roaming our streets, yet we employ police officials to guard us from those who ought to dedicate crimes adversarial to us. There should be no opt to maintain a militia. All that we ought to ought to do is be particular all the different countries agreed that none people will strive against anymore. yet it is the real international, and there is continually someone who feels that they are proper to take yet another's territory and elements, or that they seem to be some deity's chosen and may spread the best word at gun element, or that their modern new type of authorities desires to presented with the help of tanks and planes. it will be valuable if there have been no conflict, yet i imagine that the militia is guaranteed a job for a lengthy time period. like it or not, how you could ward off a conflict is to be the six hundred pound gorilla in the room.
2016-11-02 00:02:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
World War I and World War II wasn't wrong.
Sometimes we need to go to war if it serves the best interest of the entire world.
Otherwise, we'd all be speaking German.
2006-07-13 06:45:32 · answer #3 · answered by casey_leftwich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not always wrong. Because for humans nothing is ever always anything--don't get trapped in imagining that there are absolutes, unless you have perfect objectivity (i.e., you are God).
Mind you, I can't think of a reason when war is right, but that doesn't mean that I think it always is wrong.
2006-07-13 06:46:33 · answer #4 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ever wonder what the population would be if there never was a war? An old army vet asked me that, kind of made me think.
2006-07-13 06:47:28 · answer #5 · answered by just me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most of the time but in the case of world war 2 we had no choice!
2006-07-13 06:51:15 · answer #6 · answered by lou 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do. Israel for instance is having to destroy a lot of property and people right now that they don't want to, but they are only trying to survive. It is a bad thing-yes, but it is the right thing for them to do.
2006-07-13 06:46:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because if not, one side is going to get pulverized. Change is good. Death isn't necessarily good...but if it benefits more people than were killed, then maybe it's a good thing.
2006-07-13 06:44:39 · answer #8 · answered by Susie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if it prevents/stops something as bad as/worse than the war.
2006-07-13 06:44:41 · answer #9 · answered by Elven 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is human nature to conflict in a quest to gain power and so war is inevitable.
2006-07-13 06:44:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋