English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Ok, so here are my thoughts.
There are some 3 year old kids playing Barbie's together when suddenly both of them go to grab the same barbie dress. They pull and tug until one of them jumps on the other and they start to hit each other and pull each others hair. The children have just begun a little "war" between each other.

And here today we have grown adults behaving in a way no better than these 3 year olds. A war has erupted over greed and money and so our president thinks what better way to solve this than a war. they pull out their guns, fill up their tanks, and pack up the grenades. And off they go to destroy a country and kill millions of inasant kids and adults.

My point of view is that all this could be solved by creating a meeting room and chatting over the problem with officials. This dream I know is anything but realistic in the world we live in today. But why could this have not been an idea before the war began? It's definetly more mature and humane. thanks

2006-07-18 10:28:32 · 11 answers · asked by katsrkutesz11 2 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

War is a tool of diplomacy. Actually ... the final tool in a very large chest of tools.

If one side breaks the rules established in diplomatic negotiations, or refuses to hold to some common, respected guidelines, war is sometimes the result.

When you have such as Hezbollah and Hamas, terrorist organizations who refuse to sit at a negotiating table with their sworn enemy (Israel) ... and then engage in actions that threaten the security of their sworn enemy ... the result is a foregone conclusion. War.

That's why North Korea and Iran are considered such a threat to world peace and security right now ... neither is willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith.

That's the kind of thing that leads to the final diplomatic tool ... war.

2006-07-18 10:34:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, see one of those three year olds is just pulling and tugging. The other three year old goes into the kitchen and grabs Mommy's meat cleaver and goes to hack off the other little girl's head. That's what the war in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is about. We are playing by the rules, the terrorists aren't. So your idealistic world view is real nice for little Becky and little Mary playing Barbies and watching Telatubbies, but that's not the reality of the situation we are in.

2006-07-18 10:35:48 · answer #2 · answered by kelly24592 5 · 0 0

What color is the sky in your world? Do you really think diplomacy works with groups like Hezbollah or Hamas? Do you really think Iran or North Korea can be trusted at a table of rational debate? Now you're acting like those 3 year olds. Your utopia may sound good but it's not realistic. War sometimes is necessary, the quicker people like you realize that the safer this world will be. It's how we tell who the bad guys are.

2006-07-18 10:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by Nuke Lefties 4 · 0 0

Thank you Naomi, I couldn't have said it better.

OP, your long rambling opinion is superseded by your redundant poor spelling....inasant? Innocent. Definetly? Definitely.

You're are the innocent if you think that the Muslims and the Jews will meet and "chat". Do you know that by Muslim law a Muslim will be infidel if he has interaction with a Jew? They are the unclean of the unclean, in the Koran it is written. "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them..." (V: The Tables: 55)

Stop reacting with emotion and educate yourself (use spell check too) on world theology and begin to think with logic. You might have to disband your far leftist views after you understand the truth in the world.

2006-07-18 10:39:44 · answer #4 · answered by answer annie 5 · 0 0

War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups. Warring parties usually hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war.

2006-07-20 15:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yah, i agree wars are dumb. i think i like world peace better but unfortunally, some people just dont grasp the meaning of peace let alone WORLD PEACE!!! its sad. you know, that is a good idea about the meetings and all but where would it be? and if there was a meeting going on what if a terrorist attacked? that would be sad.

2006-07-18 12:21:50 · answer #6 · answered by someone special 4 · 0 0

Accepting mortality without concern or be apologetic about. Fearing mortality makes you selfish. Regretting your existence causes you to develop into stuck and unable to bypass ahead. maximum individuals will face this at one factor - and it must be settled in order to proceed with a wealthy and priceless existence.

2016-10-14 22:37:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Unfortunately yes

2006-07-18 10:31:30 · answer #8 · answered by The Foosaaaah 7 · 0 0

That's why we need to give women a chance to lead. Women have more ethical qualms about murdering each other's children and they don't have to play that "my dick is bigger than yours" bullshit.

2006-07-18 10:35:26 · answer #9 · answered by HelloKitty 3 · 0 0

hope this does not upset you ,but soon its the draft for all 18 year-26 olds.we just need the poeple and there blood....all in the name of oil ,and nuc.s,worldpolice.....

2006-07-18 12:00:52 · answer #10 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers