2006-11-06 04:59:44 · 18 answers · asked by Optimistic 6 in Social Science ➔ Economics
War may be a necessary evil to keep the herd thinned out but the global economy would do fine without it if our leaders put as much effort into making our quality of life better as they do in planning and carrying out wars. Don't get me wrong, our quality of life has never been better (at least in America and the other developed nations) but it is the human condition to always strive for better. Unfortunately, there are some who want to kill us so we have to keep our military strong and go to war when necessary. Eventually we will live in a utopian world or we will kill ourselves off. There can be no other outcome.
2006-11-06 06:13:58 · answer #1 · answered by alfiore1 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
War is like a fight at school between a bully and a person who wont take any crap from that bully. If that anti-bully beats-up the bully the whole school will be A better place. Is war Necessary? just think if you had a chance to kill a Phyco killer and you just stab him in the sholder and walk away. will you get away. no! he'll stab you in the back. Why the F L| C |< do people want Bush to turn away from war when we just pissed off one of the most nuculer Phyco killing country in the world. America will get stabbed in the back. I'm sure Bush is waiting for the right moment when the Deplomace is at the highests to pull out. yes!
2006-11-06 05:29:11 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its no longer mandatory. remember that in the time of usting Saddam Hussein (which replaced into no longer even the unique clarification for going to conflict . . . remember the WMD's) . . . over 60, 000 civilians have been killed to boot. those are the main causalties of any conflict. a widespread protection tension action must be greater interior this kind of a police action . . . unlike in Korea interior the 1950's which replaced into particularly a conflict, however the protection tension needs to act as a police tension, surgically focused on the enemy after a lot learn. If there replaced right into a drug situation on your community, case in point, you does no longer anticipate the police to apply deadly tension on the outset and use clusterbombs to rid the area of any a threat druge sellers because of the fact it would interior the long-term terrorize the community worse than the drugs. look at, come to a reasonable plan of action and execute it with as little carnage is a threat . . . and with somewhat greed purpose as a threat. the alternative is what we've continually had until eventually now . . . . mass homicide for earnings.
2016-10-15 10:53:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately I'd say yes. Just based on how much money is spent in the U.S. on developing new weapons, paying for materials to support a war, paying all the soldiers / officers. Thinking about how many people the military employs, directly or indirectly, makes it a huge part of our economy. Then all economy's are connected, so if China's economy were to fail and fall apart completely it would have a huge impact on us.
2006-11-06 05:12:42 · answer #4 · answered by Smellysox2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many people say yes but I disagree. I don't think it is war I think it is amount of money spent on war. If we took all the money spent on war and tried to do something foolish with it, like build a train from New York to London, or try to dig the world's deepest hole the economy might do better than spending money to destroy the most important resource we have (human capital).
2006-11-06 08:40:59 · answer #5 · answered by Just Wondering 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is very important, because the leading power states are trying exactly this: to present economical and political problems as military ones and then they can have one good excuse to start armed conflict. However, I do believe that there is no any economical, political or social problem that can not be resolved in one democratic, civilized, way, with dialog and without violence and loss. Also, I am very suspicious about the option "to choose minor evil to prevent a greater one" and I agree with Hannah Arendt who believed that when people decide to choose minor evil, they decide nothing else but to choose evil as such.
2006-11-06 05:12:13 · answer #6 · answered by Aurora 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is that what war is really all about? The global economy.Who holds the biggest portfolio. and who is growing up?. Wow! So that's where everything vanishes. what a word picture from that question.All I see is grab, take. and I can do more with that than you, so that gives me the right to take everything I can get my greedy hands on. The distribution is a farce. Your eye's are to big and enough is never enough and your answer is to eliminate the many mouths, or be selective on who gets fed. There, I've vented.
2006-11-06 05:20:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but as long as there are individuals that want the biggest piece of that economy as possible, it will be the way it works.
2006-11-06 05:05:00 · answer #8 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The notion that wars are now fought for economic reason is a left-wing ideology. It was true 50 years ago, but not anymore.
2006-11-06 05:34:50 · answer #9 · answered by Steve P 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. War has nothing to do with economy. War is just bloodshed of human beings.
2006-11-06 05:01:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋