Why do Government officials believe in violence (WAR) to bring about PEACE?

Answer 1

Because it is NOT to bring peace. It is to gain more power, acquire that country's assets and to control the masses.

The only time I agree with war is when it is truly for a peaceful end. IE, Gulf War. Saddam has invaded Kuwait and we, as well as others, helped run him out of there. That war has a peaceful purpose.

Answer 2

It's the old proven theory (which if it's proven I guess it's no longer a theory) conflict to resolution. Tension to release. Ask a silly question to get a silly answer [that's not referring to your question- just a little levity].
Sometimes it is necessary for war. Without the Revolutionary War there would be no U.S.A. Without the Civil War the U.S. would still be two nations and slavery would not have been abolished. Without World War 1 we would not have had peace through World War 2. Without World War 2 we would still have Hitler and he was NOT a man of peace.
As ugly and horrible as it is... war has solved more problems than negotiations have.... or even the U.N. for that matter.
Have a great day!!!

Answer 3

War is always a last resort. By the very nature of it,,,, we try to use it as a deterrent. Just the same as the Death penalty for unjustified homicides. If it is never used, it is no longer a threat, just words. So, if the threat is real, and politics do not work, War must be a viable solution. On the day when everyone is equal, no-one is hungry, or greedy, War will become obsolete. Until then it must remain a viable option.

Answer 4

I've always wondered why so-called peace activists (and I'm not saying you're one) insist that we should just unilaterally put down our arms and not engage in any wars. Do they really think this will solve any problems?

Like it or not its a violent world out there. There are people who fight other people ALL THE TIME. Because many governments are really just a small group of people who represent no one but themselves, they are no different in this tendency to engage in fighting. Unfortunately, these governments have a lot more resources at their disposal then, say, a group of locals picking a fight with another group of locals. Rather than just pick a fight these "governments" are able to put armies with sometimes considerable military hardware out in the fields; what would otherwise be a street fight is now a war.

In general governments do not represent the will of their citizens. In the U.S. and Europe they do, but we're the by far and away the exception. Thus armies tend to fight for the personal objectives of the leaders in many, many countries. Many of these leaders are mostly greedy or have personal vendettas against other races or cultures, or they fear that other peoples, races and cultures might displace them, and they wrap all this in highly idealogical terminology. Thus they tend to find ways to covet territory, resources or people in other countries; and this leads to armies being put into play.

Most citizens of the world probably would vote for peace. But since most of these citizens have no say -- either officially or in practical terms -- in what their governments do, it is the governments that control what happens. And since, as I've said, most of these governments are at least prone to using force to achieve their objectives (which includes keeping themselves in power), it is the governments that have to be disabled for peace to exist.

How do you combat a world of violence prone governments? Diplomacy only works to a certain extent. Economic factors (either providing aid or embargoing it) have an uncertain effect: as Iraq showed, the aid doesn't reach the people who need it and there are plenty of ways for embargoes to be circumvented. You can't ignore these governments, at least not for long: sooner or later they come for you, either directly in war or indirectly by withholding resources or holding your allies hostage.

What's left? If your answer is war, well, that's my conclusion, too. If your answer is something else, I'd love to hear what it is.

Answer 5

Because they know about the Islamic Ummah. The Muslims believe everybody who is born is born to the yoke of the Islamic religion/government.

American government officials know about this false premise to the Islamic government/religion, and know the only way to peace is to fight the war against Islam and its false premise that everybody is a Muslim.

The Ummah must be deleted from the Islamic religion/government if there is to be peace. That deletion is the only thing that will bring about peace.

Answer 6

So by your logic any country should never defend itself.What if 3 countrys decided to end violence, and they are attacked by 1 country that practices violence, would you have those 3 non violent countrys sit there and be taken over?
On a smaller scale, you're sitting in your home, behind locked doors, reading a book or playing with your children, when your door gets broken down by armed intruders.You have the means of defending your home and your children, but it involves using a firearm. Do you sit there and do nothing, or do you do what ever you can to keep your children, your home and your own life safe?

Answer 7

would you rather see a terroristic country have the power of nuclear arms? I'm sure that you are referring to something else but the same logic applies. Iran has just refused all the incentives that the UN has offered them in return for their agreement to stop enriching uranium. it was a good deal and they refused it. what is the next step? sanctions. what if that doesn't work? what then? do they fold and hope that Iran doesn't use their nukes for war? or do they stop them by force, with military action which could lead to war? what other alternative is there that you can think of?

Answer 8

For example, let's say you live in a little tribe, and there is another little tribe over the hill. The over-the-hill tribe comes over with big sticks and makes you give over all your food. If you do that, you will starve. So the leader (the government) of your tribe decides to fight (go to war) instead.

So it is not always so simple as war bringing peace. It is often seen as war for survival.

Answer 9

There are two reasons and money is one, as someone stated earlier. But the other goes under the thinking that if you beat the resistance out of someone or something, they have no choice but to bend to your will. If they submit, there is peace, but not a true peace because everyone will always have difffering opinions. So, it comes back to whomever has the biggest toys wins.

Answer 10

Because sometimes, war is the only way to solve an issue.
Appeasement didn't work with Hitler, and it won't work with the likes of a Bin Laden and his sick ilk.War is the only option with a genocidal enemy. Peaceful movements only work with a civilized enemy - such as the British and Ghandi and Dr. King and the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's