Sometimes war is necessary but in cases where it is not, how is it defined as war and not murder? a man who kills someone is a murderer, a man who kills several people is a mass murderer, a man who kills for someone else is a hit man, but a man who is told by a leader to kill many people is a soldier. At what point is war necessary and otherwise is it murder?
2006-08-05 01:51:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
This is a question in general, not specifically to one war like Israel and Hezbollah.
2006-08-05 01:58:13 · update #1
But you lack an important ingredient to your premise...war is to make money! All wars have been over possession or wealth but if I get angry with you and kill you, that's murder. War is justified by corporations and politicians, but egged on by the media but a simple murderer lacks the finances (save for people like Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson), they lack the cunning of political friends and the press crucifies them. Sometimes, the two become a little confused as when we bump off leaders of other nations....like Allende or Ngo Dien Diem...was that war or murder? I guess that it's not important as it was the leaders did it. I am hypercritical of the foreign policies of the US because there are alternatives to bloodshed....remember that we supported both Saddam and bin Laden with billions...so perhaps it's time to stay at home and take care of business.
2006-08-05 02:07:57 · answer #1 · answered by Frank 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a government determines that it is necessary and takes agressive action or defense, then it is war. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it murder instead. A military leader does not tell his soldiers to go out and kill. Rather that to defend himself, even if it means killing. How about supporting the soldiers out there defending freedom and quit being so judgmental and single-minded.
2006-08-05 08:59:08 · answer #2 · answered by Emm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bizzarely war actually has a lot of accepted international rules, and one of those is that in a conflict between nations, the notion of murder is suspended but only in the case of uniformed armed forces.
Civilian guerilla groups are still commiting murder under the law.
2006-08-05 08:58:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
never war is necessary. U will see that after all these massacres they will all sit on the same table and negotiate for peace. War never is the solution..
2006-08-05 09:01:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not allow Hazbollerajha to use my women and children as human shields. I do feel bad for the dead, but it is not Israel's fault. Hazbollerajha is killing Israel's women and children too you know!
2006-08-05 08:56:04 · answer #5 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ISRAEL NEVER KILLED CIVILIANS ON PURPOSE
(IT'S HAPPENED WHEN THE TERRORISTS HIDING BEHIND CHILDRENS, AND EVEN THEN ISRAEL APOLOGIAS FOR THAT...)
BUT THE TERRORISTS TARGETING THEIR MISSILES TO CIVILIANS.. STRAIGHT TO CIVILIANS NOT ONLY SOLDIERS-THAT'S A WAR CRIME.
2006-08-05 11:23:50 · answer #6 · answered by Charly ** 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you ask a silly question
I am sure if I was standing out side of your house with a bunch of friends , and we were shooting at you and throwing bombs you would figure it out
2006-08-05 08:56:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WAR??? who starts wars? you? me? oh! F**k! what the!!!!!
A question for you? who starts these wars??me? you? a dog named boo?
2006-08-05 09:53:00 · answer #8 · answered by mad john 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋