It didn't work (for those of us with siblings) with our parents, so why should it work for Nations? This type of cop-out sickens me to the core. Violence begets violence.
2006-08-13 13:07:38 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In all of these cases, I would wonder why they felt that way towards me. Understanding that is the first step towards a resolution.
2006-08-13 13:22:56 · update #1
I do believe hate only breeds hate. However, even as much as I hate conflict and war I know sometimes there is just no other answer. That doesn't mean I like it.. it saddens me very much. Humanity is just not altruistic enough to be able to deal with differences in a non-violent manner. A massive societal upheaval will have to happen before something like that could ever become the norm and not the unusual.
2006-08-13 13:23:59 · answer #1 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have to agree with Lindsey. Self-defense is a fairly strong moral justification, especially when fighting aggression. People usually accept that the first aggressor is the enemy of freedom and the greatest danger to free exchange (laisse fair capitalism) and "human rights," the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
yeah, it's a poor excuse by itself, but people don't usually hold very high standards of justice, so the claim of victim is typically sufficient to win the case (even pre-emptive cases).
2006-08-13 13:24:15 · answer #2 · answered by Andy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In most cases like this though you are fighting for the survival of the very existence of your country. With siblings you may end up with a black eye, but nothing worse. Higher stakes is what makes the difference.
2006-08-13 13:12:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i idea it become Hitler or one among his supporters. it ought to were a Caesar or Napoleon besides. those who do no longer comprehend some thing about international heritage many times do not realize that "coming up" an enemy is how you possibly can create a nationwide diversion. It keeps the inhabitants from focusing on the topic matters at residing house that an same politicians are causing. like the Iraq warfare.
2016-11-30 01:36:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you're saying every terrorist or nation that wants to destroy an entire nation or culture should be allowed to do so. Because to fight back would beget more violence.
2006-08-13 13:15:45 · answer #5 · answered by chetahbill 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So what do you suggest that they do?
Someone drops 250 bombs in you neighborhood and kills you relatives and friends. Destroys land of vineyards and gardens and they say death to you. We hate you! Do terriorists attacks against you and swear to one day kill you and your wife and children? No, what should you do. Say, here I am please come kill me. I am ready to die and I know you will make the world a better place. Because violence breds violence.
So eventually everyone will kill everyone.
2006-08-13 13:17:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this happens with nations after world war 1 where they blamed Germany. (or was it another?) apparently, me with a younger sister, it really doesn't work sometimes. too bad. i think nations pointing fingers aren't being too responsible for their own actions that they have to blame others for their mistakes.
2006-08-13 13:12:19 · answer #7 · answered by ^broken^ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In criminal law, self-defense, or defense of others is justification for a violent act.
2006-08-13 13:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by Lindsey 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not so much that they started it; its more like they started it and there is no clear sign that they will change their course of action of doing it again.
2006-08-13 13:15:17 · answer #9 · answered by leikevy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is. When someone threatens you, you really do have a right to react violently against them.
2006-08-13 13:11:30 · answer #10 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋