Why do liberals jump to peace? even though sometimes peace dosen't work?

Question

I know liberals view republicans as trigger happy, but sometimes war will solve problems, remember 1776? Don't you think that sometimes military action is necessary? (I just see it all the time, lates being Isreal/Hezballoh. Liberals before understanding the on going problem get pissed that people are dying. I mean I don't think anyone want's to see innocent life being killed. I know some liberals understand the problem but I just hear a lot that don't, the ones that cry blood for oil etc. I also realize their are uneductaed republicans who do the same on the other side)

Sometimes 2 sides just can't agree and won't bend any bit. North vs. South, WW2, and Isreal vs Ji-hadists. I wish we could all just get along and not need war but some people insist on it. Is Isreal suppose to let Hezballoh kindap their soldiers and terrorize their people and just sit idle? I just don't think there is enough development in the middle east where they would agree on peace, they are too imbeded into their views.

By the way, there have been a lot of good responses. Thanks everyone for not just rampling on stupid ground.

Answer 1

Exactly, you proved your point. I don't understand why people decide to categorize liberals, democrats and republicans. It doesn't mean because they are liberals they don't understand or because they are republicans they are trigger happy. This conversation is pointless and it leads to no solution. Why aren't people focusing on solutions rather than who will be the first to take action or say something. Yes I understand that it is difficult to engage in diplomatic actions for too long and it could even be dangerous. Just as in North Korea. Thirteen years of diplomatic tolerance and nothing has happened. However the key is the manner in which you engage in diplomacy. Remember, power means nothing if your enemy does not think you will use it. If your enemy truly believes you have power and you will use it, you will never have to go to war because your enemy will be threatend and will have to back down (for it is in the interest of his nation) However, when you exercise bad diplomacy the result is that your aggressor thinks that you will not use your power (even if they know you have it) which gives them more room to continue their actions against you and then, this leaves no other solution but war. War is the consequence of bad diplomacy. If you are able to participate in smart diplomacy (which the united states should be able to do) you will not need to go to war. Your power will be believed and understood throughout the world.

Answer 2

It's unwarranted idealism. Not to mention it makes for a better platform. Oh, this candidate wants PEACE? We ALL want peace, right? So, I imagine some REALLY think that war is always a bad thing... even when the alternatives are murder, slavery, oppression, and war (started from the other end). Some just say it because it sounds good and they know that someone like Bush CANNOT advocate leaving Iraq (per example). It violates the Geneva convention. It would cause chaos in the Middle East.

Answer 3

You state that sometimes war will solve problems, but then cite 1776 as an example. That was a revolution. That was an example of citizens taking up arms to overthrow an oppressive regime, justifiable because governments cannot be allowed to violate basic human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc).

Please explain what you mean by "peace doesn't work."

Answer 4

Sometimes the "jump to peace" is not about peace, but an attempt to undermine a political opponent. Both political parties are willing to use public ignorance and pre-conceptions to score political points.

Sometimes the "jump to peace" is a failure to realize that there are bad people out there who don't care about peace and human decency. It's an inability to comprehend just how evil some people are.

But I think most of the "jump to peace" in the US is attributable to people who don't care about anything outside of their own backyard. It's people who don't realize that by a refusal to fight the bad guys now they are giving those bad guys the opportunity to bring their war and terrorism to us.

People don't want to be confused with facts, war is bad, stay out of it.

Answer 5

Good post man.........

To the one girl who left the answer on one good thing thats happened.....

Now women can vote and walk the streets without getin stoned or having to walk with their husband...now they can talk to other people w/o their husbands say. Childern that are girls can now go to school and get a job to support their family...Who do you think did all this? AMERICA...we built the schools, and got rid of the taliban (spelling i dont care, their scums) No we arnt turning it into a American country and stealing their oil.

But fine will just leave them alone. We should have done that to the jews when Hitler was in power...it wasnt our problem right!?

Answer 6

There's no comparison between our Revolutionary war and the Iraq war. Iraq's an uncessary interventionist clusterfuck, the Revolution was against tyrannical British imperialism. Saddam was a murderous bastard, but he wasn't trying to take over other countries..

Answer 7

Not all Liberals jump to peace. FDR would be considered a liberal and we all know what he did. JFK AND LBJ were considered Liberals, well at least they were members of the democratic party. I think Liberals are more for using force as a last resort, when diplomacy doesn't work. Why is there such a rush to kill people, I'll never understand it

Answer 8

As long as people in this world are so ignorant as to give people labels and attempt to group everyone, because their fragile minds are incapable as seeing others as individuals, and would rather just stick everyone in group "A" because they have a couple of things in common we will never understand true peace as a species. I cant answer your question, because not all "Liberals" think that.

Answer 9

i think it's a case where the gov't (controlled by republicans and supported by democrats) has gotten too far into the middle east, that they don't know what to do. of course peace is not applicable, because peace will not come on our terms. and war is not the answer either, because we started it, and we can't finish it. i truly believe it's a case of the gov't (both reps. and dems.) not doing their job, and (sorry, i have to say this) bush. it seems he doesn't care if he goes against entire nations, his constituents, republicans, democrats, etc., his "we'll smoke 'em out" and "bring it on" attitude obviously has not and will not work.

Answer 10

OK everyone who answered...he is not talking about ONLY the Iraq war, he is talking about war in general terms. And by the way, if I had asked this question, I would give the Best Answer to "spot".