2006-11-26 13:22:54 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There are no good reasons for war period.
2006-11-26 13:26:37 · answer #1 · answered by Bean counter 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋
If you mean for starting a war, I can think of only two:
Stopping genocide.
Defending an allied nation, only when it is attacked unprovoked by a third nation.
When it comes to Genocide, I feel that it is the moral responsibility of every nation to do whatever is needed to see it end. However, sadly most nation ssimply choose to ignore it.
Remember, to have a war only one nation has to start it. In the last 100 years, almost every war the US found itself in was because of the actions of another nation. Germany sank a passenger liner to get us involved in WWI. After Japan attacked us, Germany then also declaired war against the US. In Korea, North Korea invaded a strategic ally, South Korea. The same thing in Viet Nam.
Lebanon in 1982-1983 was a UN peace keeping force, and the US was not at war with anybody. They simply were caught in the cross-fire.
Both Somalia and Yugoslavia were attempts to end genocide. Afganistan was to remove a government that actively supported International Terrorism. Iraq was because of both supporting International Terrorism, failure to follow UN agreements, and because of the genocide.
2006-11-26 15:39:45 · answer #2 · answered by dothan_mike 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a country like N. Korea decides to launch nukes to the USA, would you just sit there and let them do it? The reason for war is simple, we go to war to reduce the threat and get rid of it. In the end peace will come or the destruction of the whole planet.
2006-11-26 13:43:02 · answer #3 · answered by Soggy Waffles 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Some things are worth fighting for. The results should justify the sacrifices and suffering. But the smarter resolution would be diplomatic. Was abolition of slavery worth a civil war?
Many wars are acts of aggression by despots seeking to increase their fame and fortune. It would be justified to resist that unwarranted aggression.
2006-11-26 13:46:49 · answer #4 · answered by sain et hereaux 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The four "rungs" on the evolutionary ladder are ranked as follows: 1) inorganic value, 2) biological value, 3) social value, 4) intellectual value. A social pattern or value (for example, a society) is higher up on the evolutionary ladder than a biological pattern or value (a human being). A society is a "real thing": a city or a country is like a "living organism." People devour animals in order to grow and thrive, and it is moral to do so because human beings are higher up on the evolutionary ladder than animals (human beings are more evolved); similarly, a society (like America) "devours" human beings, so it can live and thrive.
How many people have been born in New York City, "made their contributions to society," and died? Yet, New York City (a society) still stands and has grown stronger over the years. In war, people tell soldiers to "do it for your country"; in other words, do it for America, a society that is higher up on the evolutionary ladder and, therefore, more important than one human being. It is moral to sacrifice a human being in order to save a society if that society is being threatened (by terrorists) because a society is higher up on the evolutionary ladder than human beings.
The following is a metaphor to better explain these ideas. A pig does not know that the farmer is feeding it in order to sell it as meat later on; the pig thinks that the farmer is subordinate to it--that the farmer is supposed to help the pig grow and thrive. In fact, the farmer is more powerful than the pig and is using it in order to make money to benefit himself or herself. In this metaphor, the society is the farmer, and the human beings are the pigs. No person or group of persons--not even the government--has complete control over a society. Societies function as if they have a mind and life of their own.
(There are a lot of ideas that I can add in order to better explain this, but this is as concise and succinct as I can get it).
2006-11-26 14:01:14 · answer #5 · answered by Ecesis 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really there is never a good reason to go to war, take it from somebody who has been there himself.
But, there are "other wars" that we can go into like for instance, a global war against ignorance and poverty.
"They shall settle disputes among great nations. They shall hammer their swords into plows and their spears into pruning knives. Never again will nations go to war. Never again prepare for battle."
I think that we what we should be teaching our children to look forward to in this new century.
2006-11-26 13:40:09 · answer #6 · answered by Manueldatu 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Same ones we went to Iraq for:
Stopping torture
Allowing freedom to grow
Stopping the building of nuclear weapons
Protecting your country from future attacks
For those who believe there is no good reason, I assume you can speak German. Without war, the world would be dominated by Germany thanks to Hitler. Of course except the Jews who would all be dead. War is sometimes required to stop the madmen of the world a.k.a Saddam.
2006-11-26 13:26:58 · answer #7 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A direct attack on your nation (IE Afghan war). Direct attack on allies. Threat of global domination (IE WW2). Otherwise war is a stain on society.
2006-11-26 14:07:53 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny L 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
need money start a war
2006-11-26 13:41:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer to watch a great catfight than a war. Wars are never great. But a great Catfight should be an insitution.
Catfighting Institute of Massachusetts.
I love the ring! :)
Ding... ding....
2006-11-26 13:27:09 · answer #10 · answered by HowardSternMorning 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Somebody stole my Eggo! To repel alien attacks from outer space and to keep the squirrels and rabbits out of my garden.
2006-11-26 13:33:54 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋