Does violence solve violence? Then why the wars?

Answer 1

Wars exist for the rich to become richer, by manufacturing weapons. Nothing has ever been solved by war, check it out and give me an example if you can find one.

Answer 2

No, the violence only brings more violence, however human being is a warrior race, we fight everywhere and everyday, some people could say "but is not the same, I had a littel figth with my gir/boy, but I;d never be a soldier killing people" but at the end, both feelings are the same ANGER, PROUD, GREED, etc, the main difference is that some people have much more power than others, some of them have a rifle, some of them rule a country. Furthermore each one of the people involved in a war have a different reason to fight, probably is because in the solidier runs the warrior's blood and he or she is nothing but a natural fighter like a gladiator, or a samurai or a green beret, probably this fellow had not enough money for a colleage education and his only choice was become a soldier, in time a war broke out, probably the guy believes in patriotims even if exist or not, that's a feeling pretty much like the love for a mother you will never hesitate if she needs your help, we have the non fighter guys, those who plan how to rule the world, probably some of them consider to help a country and release it from the oppression or a revenge from attacking his homeland, but others just want to take over the weak ones, history had a bunch of these guys, Napoleon, Marco Aurelio, Alexander, Hittler, Sadam Hussein, G. W. Bush, Hernan Cortez, Cuitlahuac, and so and so... violence doesn't stop violence, wars should be fought among soldiers not involving innocent civilians and children

Answer 3

Yes of course violence solves problems. Is violence right - no. Is violence necessary - sometimes. The only ethical answer that I have ever found to be comfortable with is to attempt to make violence the very last response to a problem.

Answer 4

Violence is said to solve violence? I think the commonly held belief, which fits the data better, is that violence breeds violence (Pet Shop Boys circa 1986). Particularly in the young, where adult behaviour is mimicked. If you intend to break the cycle, ie kill all the uncontrollably violent people with some controlled violence, that might work. Let me know how you get on if so.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, often times violence is the only answer. We tend to think of things and relate to them as if everyone were the same as we are. We would prefer to talk things out rather than fight over them. Unfortunately, everyone is NOT the same.

Think of it on a much smaller scale. If someone broke into your house to steal your belongings (or for some more heinous reason). Do you believe that you would be able to talk that person into leaving without taking anything or doing harm? Of course not. That person is not likely to leave until he or she is forced to do so either by the police or by your own defenses.

It is the same for countries or militant groups. Many of the militant groups you are hearing about in the news feel that if you do not see things the way they do and believe in their God, then you are an infidel and you MUST be put to death. They see this as their obligation to God and that they will be rewarded for this action. There is no way you are going to discuss this over coffee and work it out!

Wars are terrible things and hopefully someday they will be obsolete. But until people stop trying to forcibly impose their own will on others, sadly there will be war.

Answer 6

It can on a large scale. Smaller scales like fights no. But in war large scale violence can stop violence. It has been this way since the begining.

Answer 7

Sometimes it takes a violent response to stop an aggressor from continuing his/her violent behaviour, but this does not mean that violence justifies a violent response.
In the fast majority of cases there is an more efective long term alternative to violence in resolving disputes

Answer 8

No violence doesn't solve violence, never did.
But if you refuse to defend yourself, you invite violence.
Civil disobedience had no effect on Pol Pot, the Janjaweed or Hitler.
Civil disobedience can only ever be civil, even Gandhi realised that - he served in the army.

Why the wars, because it only takes one in a million (who cannot solve his difficulties) to attack someone. And a million pacifists can't stop him.

I wish it wasn't this way, but it is.
We need both soldiers and pacifists in equal numbers to protect us.

Answer 9

you need to ask an same question a unique way. to illustrate: "Is it acceptable to shelter your self at the same time as someone attacks you or attacks those for whom you're responsible?" or "Is it good to dedicate a violent act adversarial to the guy who's attempting to rape your sister/your daughter/your son/your brother/your mum/your dad?" or "Is it good to shelter a neighbour who's being attacked?" The eventualities will be representative of a topic dealing with a individual or a authorities. there isn't any well-known distinction contained in the guidelines. from time to time, the attack adversarial to which a defence is critical isn't a bodily violent attack - it will be an monetary attack or an attack on liberty - even with the undeniable fact that the in problem-free words effectual way of eliminating the attack ought to contain actual acts that, in turn, bring about violence. it truly is too basic to say "warfare is undesirable. Love is sweet." it truly is a staggering mantra and about as functional as a knitted condom. sure, for sure we would want to continually seek for to unravel adjustments by communicate and negotiation .... yet there are circumstances, as contained in the eventualities stated above, at the same time as action speaks louder than words. Violence is an significant defence adversarial to violence even with the reality that what we recommend by 'violence' ought to per chance cover a extensive spectrum.

Answer 10

No, but men love to fight..........makes them feel powerful..............wars takes money..........and wars make money for people in power, same as any disaster...look at the sunami, (don't think I have spelt that right,but anyway) there are still people waiting for help there and look at the millions that were sent from all over the world?..... because there will always be greedy people with no morals or value of life......their just, me ,me ,me, and f... everyone else,. and that's why there are the rich and the poor.
If the rich were to share their wealth with the poor, every person on earth would have a decent standard of living, but it won't happen because of greed.
I'm not a bible basher by any means, but I do believe in something, but my faith is fading rapidly, especially in the human race.

Answer 11

Perhaps youv,e overlooked the Existence of the "Terrorist Bombers" and their avowed demands for an Islamic State to be established in every country they "INFEST" -- Which amounts to a Tyrannical , Cancerous Element -- putting the whole of the free world in Grave Danger ??????