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

19 answers

A proponent would answer that war is ORGANIZED violence as opposed to the will of the mob.

2006-09-18 07:13:03 · answer #1 · answered by ensign183 5 · 1 0

humanity does not know any other way to solve the problem. US propose money way(politics based on it) and if it does not work then war. But it well known that we cannot buy happiness. So money just delay conflicts. Violence isn't answer- is theory...well , would be truth, yet humanity have no gut to experience that. Knowledge without experience is futile. Humanity is not even close to experience that. Individuals(sum total of which are humanity) must experience it first domestically, and individuals sabotage it pointing out on humanity. Vicious circle.

2006-09-18 08:45:11 · answer #2 · answered by Oleg B 6 · 0 0

If the problem is how to prevent a violent attack, part of the answer will necessarily involve the consideration of violence, if not violence itself.

Flight or fight are the classic options nature has given us in these situations. If it's fight, and reason doesn't work as an offensive weapon, then violence is the remaining option.

Otherwise, the option is flight, but to paraphrase an old saying, you can always run, but you can't always hide.

2006-09-18 08:25:21 · answer #3 · answered by Grist 6 · 0 0

Whoever is coaching that wars sparkling up issues is coaching incorrectly! i've got self belief smacking must be a final hotel. If the subject may well be solved making use of words, that could desire to be achieved. some youngsters get caught on some path of action and in simple terms go hell for leather-based until eventually somebody hits them. If a smack is the only element that works, what determination is there? of path "no longer trouble-free love" is mandatory often times. i've got been advised i'll be a *itch mum. no longer a very friendly element to assert, yet while the alternative is a permissive mom who enables her youngsters to misbehave and worsen anybody, *itch mom sounds stable! Heaven forbid that oldsters could convey their youngsters as much as take duty for themselves. Goodness is familiar with what might ensue to society!

2016-10-15 03:25:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

War is part of the problem. I do not know of a single war that didn't leave years of violence after it. Look at Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, World Wars one and two, the crusades etc..

2006-09-18 09:53:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's a war on violence.

2006-09-18 08:07:24 · answer #6 · answered by JD 4 · 0 0

Violence is a short-term answer not the long-term problem solver. The war creates winner and loser. no one really wins. This reminds me of that great line from the movie crimson tide, "In nuclear world, the enemy is war itself" spoken by Denzel and couldn't be more true

2006-09-18 07:16:12 · answer #7 · answered by vick 5 · 1 0

War is an agreed-upon conflict, between political entities. There is a certain amount of negotiating involved.
Of course, one probably shouldn't use the unlawful U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as good examples. There wasn't much, if any, agreement there.

2006-09-18 07:20:09 · answer #8 · answered by mrearly2 4 · 1 1

Violence is not the answer. The problem is to convince eveyone of that.

2006-09-18 07:18:10 · answer #9 · answered by robsnor 3 · 1 0

war=$

2006-09-18 22:59:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers