I've always believed that those in power spend too much of our resources on developing and implementing defences and not enough on tackling the root of problems and preventing violent action in the first place. I can't tell you right now how to do this but I don't have the resources of the US president, or any national leader. So lets brainstorm, assuming there is a way, what is the first thing we need to do when presented with a situation that we would currently respond to by declaring war?
2006-09-26 07:15:19 · 39 answers · asked by xenobyte72 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I have had some good answers, and some not so good, but that's what brainstorming is about so thank you. I want to be more specific though. We are being faced with a situation where thousands of people are being abused by their leaders. They have refused to listen to reason and are defending their actions with a powerful military force on a scale similar to our own. The media are making you (the nations leader) look weak and opinion polls are predicting your days in office are numbered. What do you do... what doooo you do????
2006-09-26 07:35:11 · update #1
You sound an awfull lot like the isolationists who demanded the US stay out of WW2. It is a nice idea in theory but it just won't work. In the current conflict the USA was not the aggressor, we were attacked on our own soil, do you think we asked for that? No, radical militant islam doesn't want to talk thay want you either converted to their brand of islam or dead, they simply don't tolerate anything else. You might be willing to live like that I am not.
2006-09-26 07:27:28 · answer #1 · answered by medic 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Truth.
Get rid of the secret services, insist that the press is honest, and all wars will end.
Wars a created by about half a dozen people, who never actually fight.
They are the heads of governments and their close associates who use the people as pawns.
If all the people were enabled to hear and see the truth, then there would never be the slightest support for any war, and those suggesting it would be placed in a sanatorium where they belong
2006-09-26 16:13:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I honestly don't know, simply because as far as world politics go, there are situations where a violent response is the only response to a situation. World War II for instance, when Hitler and his acolytes was clearly bent on exterminating an entire race, together with eventual world domination.
In the first Gulf War we were right in doing something about the invasion of Kuwait but failed entirely to install democracy, so Kuwait still labours under what appears to be an almost absolute monarchy, with the occasional token elections.
The invasion of Afghanistan was dissimilar to the Iraq wars on account of the de facto regime declared war on the US on 9/11, plus a council of senior clerics bought together by the Taliban regime requested that Bin Laden be evicted from the country, which was ignored by the Kabul government.
The UN needs to be far more assertive in its actions, both in defending itself against the current US administration (Who appear to see them as a threat and an enemy, rather than a colleague) and in its imposition of its directives. Being seen as timid in their actions against the Taliban emboldened the US-led force to flick two fingers to the UN and invade Iraq to prevent themselves from being further embarassed by their poor intelligence on Saddam Hussein and his appaling dictatorship. Also, the US let down the Marsh Arabs of Iraq by inciting an attempted revolution and then disappearing from the scene as it was being brutally crushed, cementing Hussain's leadership in the process, which may well be why Bush Jr decided to act with such impunity and decisiveness in Iraq.
On the subject of the UN, despite its flagrant breach of their directives on other issues, Israel is rarely credited with preventing a possible nuclear war in the region in bombing the nascent Iraqi nuclear facilities in the early eighties, not sure if this constitutes non-violent action, as few people were killed, but it saved a lot more lives in the long run.
This may well be the only time in the late 20th century when preventative action was justified. The latest war is curently being justified as 'Preventative action' but to have been planned on the back of a cigarette packet. Three, possibly four main questions appear never to have been asked by the high command of the invading force:
'What if they don't want us there?
'How do we get Arab opinion onside and prevent this from being seen as a corporate exercise in securing resources?'
and of course,
'How do we preserve the region's peace when and if we leave Iraq?'
2006-09-26 08:02:29 · answer #3 · answered by El Barno 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
on the same time as a community organizer feels like somebody who makes useful the bake sale is so as, it rather is not any longer. A community organizer is somebody who gets the persons in contact with interior sight politics. it rather is how impact could be made in Congress, and not by using the present device of lobbyists with agendas. i'm no longer asserting that a community organizer has greater household initiatives then any given mayor/governor...even yet it would be reported that the government could paintings with the persons so plenty greater powerful if there replaced into greater proactive community organizers.
2016-12-12 15:34:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called diplomacy, and negotiations.
When people realize that war is not the people of one country fighting against the people of another country, but the ruling class of the aggressor nation wanting to acquire the wealth of the other, then maybe ordinary people will refuse to fight. Why should my son die so that rich men can get richer? They always use patriotism as the incentive.
This is what is meant by "patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels"
2006-09-26 07:18:45 · answer #5 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
war is a natural behavior. because of the lack of resources.
and as aresult - those who can't achieve ALLtheir will - will open in war for that.
but why go so far a way? the net is not consist just of free sites!!! and they demand money - which is a kind of war.
even yahoo don't supply every thing for free... you can negotiate with them about it...
and the history books are full of details. including your independence war and the enslaving of the indians.
2006-09-26 07:33:16 · answer #6 · answered by eli a 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First you have to stop breeding hate. This is pretty much the cornerstone of why we are at war/conflict with islamic terrorists IMHO. As soon as we teach each other not to hate at birth, then maybe we will get somewhere.
2006-09-26 07:26:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lock the leaders from each side in a room with primitive weapons and let them fight it out and we'll watch on TV.
2006-09-26 11:58:34 · answer #8 · answered by Mike10613 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dialogue with your supposed 'enemy' and do not listen to sycophants and war mongers who make living from conflicts at the expense of the week and the poor.
2006-09-26 08:06:07 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
germ warfare is pretty non violent.... and bacteria can be genetically altered to affect only certain people, or chemical war fare let's just poisen thier water supply and kill them all off in a non violent but preferably painfull way
2006-09-26 07:24:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋