Do you think that war is the answer in order to get peace?

Answer 1

If a country is threatening peace and refuses to negotiate, then YES, war is necessary to defend the peace.

Answer 2

When two entities clash, if their is not a peaceful solution, then war is the last resort. The war will create peace when it is over at the expense of one of the participants. It's an unfortunate solution that is sometimes necessary.

Answer 3

Just ask the Mayans or the people of Merv, in Turkmenistan and Otrar in Kazakhstan....oh yea, they're extinct... Sometimes peace can only be obtained by fear of annihilation , too bad political correctness is making our country look weak...

Answer 4

Sorry for the length, but PLEASE read. It has a lot of bearing on the conflict today:

"Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." --Ronald Reagan

Answer 5

Sometimes. When attacked & sometimes even if you are only threatened, the only path to true peace is to defeat your enemies in battle.

Answer 6

yes it is; we had a war with vietnam and communism was the worst thing ever now all our goods come primarily from vietnam and china, 20% of our oil comes from a country thats pushing hard toward communism (venezuela). Thanks for the war all the carcasses over there did a whole lot of good for both sides. Thanks to all he flag waving nationalistic nutjobs out there who shop at walmart and buy a chevy cuz they are made in america. Without you guys we wouldnt be to blame for destabilizing Iraq based on a "hunch" from old GWB.

Answer 7

Yes. Confronting, and defeating, our enemies, when there is no other realistic course of action, resolves our issues with them.

It worked with Germany and Japan.

Answer 8

There are times when you have to take the olive branch and hit the other guy in the head with it. Sadly, there are too many people that do not understand that.

Answer 9

War is not the answer now, nor has it ever BEEN the answer since the dawn of time.

War is ineffective as a tool, and its only true purpose is to line the pockets of a select few at the highest price imaginable -- with the blood of a nation's citizens.

If the "people in charge" took five seconds to try to assess the REAL problem, consulted with QUALIFIED, LEARNED, EXPERIENCED people, and actually tried to SOLVE problems with these huge brains we have.......instead of playing "My weapon's bigger than your weapon" then perhaps mankind would be a little further down the road Civilization-wise.

Advanced societies do not take their citizens' blood and their country's resources to wage war. Advanced societies engage in art, dialogue, research, building community, providing for the future.

War benefits NO ONE except the select few who make money off of it.


It's the lowest rung on the ladder of humanity.

Answer 10

hell yes, sometimes war is necessary but the hippies don't believe in that. They would rather give up everything that made America.