English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-05 06:23:38 · 31 answers · asked by Nano 3 in Politics & Government Politics

31 answers

Not all wars. Nazism was defeated, by a war. Our nation gained Independence with a war. Slavery and a nation kept in tact by a war. And many other examples. Some wars are questionable because of the politics involved but over all war is necessary.

2007-02-05 10:00:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe, in the sense that they represent an option of last resort. To the extent that war comes about because nations failed to resolve their differences through non-violent means, then yes theey are wrong in that regard.

However, there are times when war is a superior option to not fighting.

If you knew, not suspected, but knew for a fact that someone was raping and killing women and children, and massacring the men, would it more morally right to simply not do anything, or to intervene and, if necessary, wage war to put and end to it? That's the situation that happened in Rwanda....and to my shame the US did not make the choice to, if necessary, wage war to protect the defenseless.

Some would say, that the best solution would be to put yourself inbetween the attacker and the victim as a human shield, to give your life to protect another without resorting to violence. I can respect that beleif, but I don't think in the long run it will work. There are some people in this world that cannot be reasoned with, unless you are able and willing to back your argument with the threat of force.

I also think that people have the right of revolution. If you feel that your rights are being oppressed, and you've tried everything else to secure your freedom, you have the right to make the personal chice to resort to violence PROVIDED you direct that violence at the government that is oppressing you, and not merely at civilian targets.

That being said, I also think governments, acting in the interests of the people, have the right to suppress revolution....see also, the American Civil War.

2007-02-05 06:47:56 · answer #2 · answered by esquirewinters 2 · 0 0

No, I don't agree. There are times when a nation must wage war in self protection; as in the 2nd W.W.
If we had not fought the Revolutionary War, we would have been a colony of Britain until after W.W.II, when the British could no longer support her colonies.
If the Civil war had not been fought, we would be a divided nation with either the French or British running the Southern states.
So there are times when a nation must go to war to protect it's self from the aggression of other nations.
These are some of the reasons for our nations involvement in war, there are also plenty of reasons that other nations have had to resort to war. But perhaps reading a bit of history would clear that up for you.

2007-02-05 06:48:47 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0 0

Let me put it this way:

I am a disgusting overbearing ****** and I am war-like. I say to you, peace-loving free-spirited stand-up guy, "hey pretty boy, come over here and [insert degrading maybe sexual service], or I'll make war upon you."

Do you lay down, bend over, or whatever on the principle that all wars are wrong, and so you are somehow morally better off?

And if you have no ego, then maybe I abuse your loved ones. Or some other heinous act. At what point do you say, "no, you may not make war, or I'll make you stop" ?

2007-02-05 06:34:11 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. Lee 2 · 0 0

No, in case you're attacked then what are you meant to do, in basic terms take a seat there? in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, beginning a conflict is extraordinarily much continually incorrect, preemptive wars are the international over unlawful and with stable reason. @ Chris - undecided I accept as true with a lot of what you have stated there. Chamberlain became into no longer a fool, he in basic terms exhausted all diplomatic measures in the previous resorting to conflict, isn't that what any sane chief might do? additionally, he offered Britain time to re-arm which we desperately mandatory. We would not have been waiting to combat Germany in 1936 or 1937, hell we weren't relatively waiting to realize this in 1939. additionally, we did no longer salary entire conflict on Germany from day one - have you ever by no potential heard of the Phoney conflict? apart from, a efficient invasion of Russia would not have resulted in the efficient implementation of the Madagascar Plan. For the Madagascar Plan to artwork, the Germans recognized that they required administration of the British fleet so as that they might use it to deport the Jews. without effectively invading Britain and gaining administration of the Royal army, the Nazis might desire to no longer enforce the Madagascar Plan, and that's why it failed. might you particularly that they had invaded us? Oh, and why do you think of it could have been maximum appropriate to deliver all Jews off to Africa besides? The Jews had each the superb option to stay in Germany, Poland, Holland and so on.

2016-10-01 11:30:38 · answer #5 · answered by tuberman 4 · 0 0

No I don't agree. WAR is never a good way to end a conflict.
Some wars turn out to be good.

2007-02-05 06:31:06 · answer #6 · answered by shammus55 2 · 1 0

Oh yes of course. But they are good for getting all those pent up emotions out. Oh but how I hate to have to fight. I even hate it worse when I lose. But I don't hate it when I win. Even if I hate to fight I love it when I win. Winning is right. So, if you have a war and win you might be wrong but most probably you are right.

2007-02-05 06:32:10 · answer #7 · answered by JORGE N 7 · 0 0

Was WWII wrong? The Revolutionary War?

Wars are not the best solution and there are other options. The other options unfortunately rely on others working with you. Unfortunately, Saddam was unwilling to cooperate with the world, leaving no other option to deal with the situation. Clinton prefered doing nothing.

2007-02-05 06:29:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Almost always. Sometimes they are necessary. Thats why the Founders made the congress the ones with the power to make war or not.

2007-02-05 06:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

"Wars are never the answer" would be a more accurate way of putting it.

We homo sapiens never tire of espousing our "superiority" over the other species, yet this is the one area where we could shine and actually demonstrate this to be true.

Instead of progressing, refining, cultivating our humanity, our diplomacy, our compromising, our generosity -- what do we do? Spend billions upon billions upon billions upon billions on bigger, better, more INSANE weaponry.

And we are not one inch closer to a better world.

War is not the answer. Never was, never will be. And until we learn that? Nobody will EVER be "safe."

2007-02-05 06:29:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers