When there is a real threat to national security-only that justifies shedding blood.
2006-11-29 03:30:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
when the people who are affected want a war?
problem is in the worst cases theres no way of finding out like that.
reason is a relative term
the line they have to cross is set in different places by each of us.
reason to one is not enough reason to another yet long overdue in the view of yet another.
2006-11-29 12:00:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by implosion13 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes. we have to defend ourselves or we will be annihilated.
If someone had a gun to your head would you not even consider defending yourself?
If someone had a knife at ur moms throat would u just say it is not reasonable to try to protect her?
To me there is no diffference in one person threatening my life or a nation threating the lives of everyone.
I would protect myself, my mom and the nation.
2006-11-29 11:36:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Krystle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Should there be a point ? i mean should there be like "ok 50 iraqi's died" not a big deal.... Oops ! 600000 died make a big deal !!!
Even if there is one death or one violation that should be the last point to be reasonable
2006-11-29 11:32:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sun2 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
When they are killing others, in an amount clearly exceeding the likely number of war dead
2006-11-29 11:30:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by LisaT 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
War is *always* "reasonable"...Humans invented "reason". Therefore, as long as there is a human involved, there will always be a "reason".
2006-11-29 11:33:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by fjpoblam 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
When thet interfere with another groups rights
2006-11-29 11:29:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Sean 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
when you are on the defensive and being attacked. No other reason.
2006-11-29 11:39:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd say 15% more
2006-11-29 11:38:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋